









































































































































































cose, + A\, 


>* \, A ' ^Sr ° ^ ■ 

*J*rv» 0 /svSSrafxS a w , 


2 %fV , 
o A*A o 

^ ^ ^v o 





X 'V 

4>\ » 

'o , A < ^’ 0 « 0 ,%.' 1 '- t <■ » ''<^ V « l, *, N 

(x 0 O ,'W'.°O. 

Vo 1 0 


Wtf * jO-A * c§|y|o» o t ^ jPVY olS^ *■ »y 

, *^°° s ** ’Vp *;^ ,n ^o*v^ 

?mi?\ \# iMk\\£r Jill*" \# f»? \f • SSL _ ,, 






H * O, 


* .J^SLISlb * .O'/. * o ^Ox * * *P"/Y w <?_ ~o >* V 

v^^Jp°,. * >S> °*° °*^t. ofV '- 1 o^ * * >S >'°* 0 'Vj * 

1 Q{» *, s .sssrawh/'V .o- <t> *? <■#*». ^ v ^/u o 


0 ^, A?v 

° •>>'6 



>, ^ v V 

-, %-& .* 

<£»v tlKi aVvv o^w« ", 

*:;vV • • >:^V“ * v*^\ 

' * .Ww°«•*. ^ 

'* ^ \;v 3 K oo*‘4. o%^^ *. 2&Z m * 0 ° 

s -fife J"■' 

S - y . -» (“A - A " 

«■«•/$ v °“ l * 



x^^jv ; WBRZ? 

“ * 4< 

0 '*^Sr* °‘ > b't^ ^ 

& ^ 5n, ‘ ^ *-%. » w v ^* -» i-/Ay\- 





oWM$: <5*^ ^VA oW^s?; -v>^. * ^ 

O M/ >xV\N a. '5 >‘\ k ^azffVi^r aT* <$y ^ *V^ ^SlWlWr ^ 

">°k^ • kkkk * ^ 

o‘ A A,:^/xA t.»* v 0 ^.' 






%o%V ^ ^ 

>;% k . cP 


,v ^ 


,’‘/ lto V; 

, v p,\ 


:;^y .. “S^j^k ° N 0 k - ' ■ 1 %? 

x ' r o Q V V* V <v Jttfil/Ht* * < 0 -x A. x. v .R^/, * V vi» .-<>■ ^ ^ »?> <<^ V fAN^A, o v A ^v' 

^ ,r«Ss* xg> zmski :■» 


AO. 


5 ^ o vy/>. o 

^ Va 


tt 
4 

^•■•> "^.'s « * ^.>>" i^! ”‘ 0, * 0>>o V,M *>° 

« z// Ar ^ . 

o o <: x^Jjv », 

-<*>. k >« < 7 ^^ Av" 

■« f \ ) 4 ”' t 'A'^A'-'*«5^ f . °"’' ^A 0 " 0 *-^ '* ^yJ^S-% ■ A 

y,,<v ; gmzs* %<t .'^', * £m&z 1 ^ ° * W * 

^ k/k" ^ o k .r ^S8& * 


4 , / V. 

*^*^*°*^ A ° 



Kt# 

<^ v ^ ^ <? . 

O^ cO Nc ^ ^o 


* n* 



u 

o ^y^Vvvi 5 •» ^. c ^' , ^ *» ^ 

>, o a> -%» '/j > <h V ^ 0 

: ^°»A* \v- A * ' 

^ J>% * 




"v° ^°* ; .^P' V V®^ W * 

‘^X::'^^-K''^v^v'i 


4 O 

^-k,' ^ 

^ \^M§' rf^t- ^ 

^ 9 ^ aV' SjttiteJj* .<0 ' 

^ ."J<\¥/^% ^ * 

J. %\W» : /\\ 

” ' 1 ^* w */V" " 'V 

. \v- A !*&£' 


4r A 1 ^ ^ 

. ^ /* 5 t' V^) <r, ,S Ay 

nNC ^ d\ 

" % ^ > 
1 v*o^ 0 * ^OV * 

* aX * feifcy * ('>_> <» 


(S' 


\.<^ »j®; 

a v \. \wm?* 4 <r, 

0<l *“ cr c0>,c ** 
%% o°^. - 

:• M ■•< 



. 


<r 

. „ L, .-.W^A A,»- A \-.,W,v 

■< 3 £K‘; - >^K ■ ‘X«X‘ 'X-: 

o * <> d‘V? > ■« 1 v*o^ 0 * ^ov * t 


P ku cu £ qO "k> <>k Cq cP k - 

N 


w 

^°/f 


».T//ii,Vi 







V <V 


w 


- c5? JV J o ,V«k o '“ cf’J'n 

to jp ov >). ji'/n ^ <v. q T//>^nA\r *“ <t? i *A 

> * * kS H<k» > . v 1 v* . * £f e5 ^ <fc- ' 

-- -/q a v" 4 aO Oj ^ Av 4 Tq .-i *C> 

"n <$* -t* ** MY rV cO Nc n * * 4<£ v «* a * MY * x --- 

\ &*gazfe?+\ ^ *° ' * 

" v° ^ *,1111: ^ - 

* O n rQ 

<*°*>rv ff,1 \o^s % 



* 

V-*V?‘***V 

%A ?£fe‘ r Y« 

\y*j 



"♦9k ^ * 

o Xp C^ * 
0 ^00^ u 


** AA ‘ ,!,NO, 


r ^*Ko”^ L ' 

* Av A> K 

* OY * 

; 1 ?^ * 

°o ** 



W 


’-> 0 »* 
(rose - * 0i °4> 



U't) 

v * ^|||j3j|^ * ^ y< ^‘ 

>oJ * 4 ; ^/co-,;v * * 

°fe/ 

* 


:^;<l-o r>^4^..Cv 

.YrtM&i*. A / *A'. * 



O KC 




si^llfflf^ o o*A. 

k Y 

Pl> ■* * * * <0^ >, L ( i 


YA .*■» \<j 
J 


. , o- »W^°o ^2^%°*^ 

. yA V? «m? *'■ 4 ®*’: ^ 

v >°y. ^flllK? ^ t«g||5; *°y. * . '* 

3 O r V'V * ° '^cf’ O 

o Y///^\\^ r cfjJ'r - 



^ %°y$w/^ \\wa- 

^° t oWc^ ,! H> ) ■* # L,4 + < ^> y ° * ^ 6^° cONG< -f>^0 ^ # 

\ ^ S z^md;* \ ^ * 


& A 

- ^ov * 

* x°<u 

V 7 ^*> + 

V/ * 


vx™** 

cf’^n J ° < y?\ 

• * ^ 'V # < 

>o 4V 4 A <^ xx, *77T** a LI 

^ « C) '•^a’C'- Y S’<, 6 'md* ^ * 




« 


k/» 

. v <*r o 0 \‘W*p Q o 


P< 


r ov 




*y> * ^b^V\NS>? s7 % /v ,r ^ J ^y// \kSf ** *> iff} * 

^ oKo ;>>4 o 'X n ' 1 ‘>:^S 

|k^ ^ ^ ^ rA^36?Ai O T,a XT’ 

® * 41 MMSWh ° **-'& « * 



\^P/ </\ ^ V \ #; </\ 

'V° * ^ o^ 0 ^ 0 “ 0 */Y^ * * S V>” ll *«,V° * '■'* o 4 t c °“°^°Y 0 J * ‘ '^ s 

; ’^A° ?&i£* ° y o-f ?&!M\ 'Vo^° %/ * 

_ ±r\ * * . 0 «* „ A.n * Jw&lilsr >» .O*/. * 


o <p & * 

0 VY 5 u 

<£? o 

4 7 V V J> 

sS 


**®vv ^ 


* 

* 

.P^o 
N„ ^ 

I o 

. \m*/\\ _ _« £ 

' - * * <S\. -.V" • i " 0 ^ 

-v k ^° * 


- Jsfl 
*’ ^ J 

-o? ^ ' 




v«<^ 



^t^\ f V v c 

»X*-°v>*»«V 

y Y >f3S^« Wi 

*“ 




* x ov' * * r *<y ° 6 r Q^ * 

; v°^, tilllh? ^ rsSMj; v°-^, : __„ ^ .. .__. . 

^ \s Av.^* ^ ^ 


ff n * * « * 

- <& 4>V 

'o ^\p & * 

>^ 0 «» 

.* ^ ^ °o s> t, cP Sjgxi*?' °o J* * 

* .Os. v 






<|^V ^ v \ V^P^F.* <$?“%} ‘‘JSBsir. 

%y° »‘■‘ i ( /c»»'. ( V ” ’ '^ V »*‘ l, */V° “ 0 ^ & c o> " : *, 0 ' l b^ * ’ 'a 

: : o‘^|ar; \ v ^ :*jjgf^; /^ter. \v^ A 


,° \ 
KO ’<!^»■^*o < < V*“'• , ’ , 

i» V *W/'/c%. « 

*■ '<“; %■$ “ 

^ ♦* ^ YA 
» 5 ^ 


- • 

/ A A- A’' 5 ' 1 ' 

^**j^*%° “ , 'V & » coN ° 
v 0 v^ ^ 


: V 


V.. V® y\ 10 Ss^*J\ * * > V^* s<, * &% 
??m*\ V > v . 4 ¥i\°A //At^. ^ ^V/tse®:^. 


%/ 



</. »o , 1+ A° 
<^' •%," —« A>j rr 

^ V -° 4 

•* ^/N< 0 * 


> +^GMsr\ «v m* * 

%** * * WA /V° # ^ o^o 0 * 1 ®^ 0 ^ 
a v*o^ 0 * 




* Ao 

° < p’ A* *■ ~&W/l\i<3P *f 

*' A°' „ „ , V. ^oTo’V^ ..V*.n *^' 0 ° 

Y, 

m X&M1//U o 

z r 




v&zmp '1 Y^ck ° <k >s ^ *v y°^» - 

► A/yJk'V * o j* _V O * JO *V 

c*” 

AA Y k -^^5 A A ®Jfe*r 



5>J?r 











^OUIAA£ # 


^ tD STA *, 



PRO\& 


Arsenic Treatment 
Technologies for 
Soil, Waste, and Water 




































































































































✓ 

































Solid Waste 

and Emergency Response 
(5102G) 


EPA-542-R-02-004 
September 2002 
www.epa.gov/tio 
clu-in.org/arsenic 




rsenic Treatment Technologies for Soil, Waste, and Water 


Internet Address (URL) •http://www.epa.gov 

Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper (minimum 50% Postconsumer) 











TABLE OF CONTENTS 


Section p a ge 

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS.iv 

FOREWORD. v 

NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER .vi 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .vi 

PART I OVERVIEW AND FINDINGS 

I. 0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .1-1 

2.0 INTRODUCTION. 2-1 

2.1 Who Needs to Know about Arsenic Treatment Technologies?.2-1 

2.2 Background.2-1 

2.3 How Often Does Arsenic Occur in Drinking Water? .2-2 

2.4 How Often Does Arsenic Occur at Hazardous Waste Sites?.2-2 

2.5 What Are the Structure and Contents of the Report?.2-4 

2.6 What Technologies and Media Are Addressed in This Report? .2-5 

2.7 How Is Technology Scale Defined? .2-5 

2.8 How Are Treatment Trains Addressed?.2-5 

2.9 What Are the Sources of Information for This Report?.2-5 

2.10 What Other Types of Literature Were Searched and Referenced for This Report?.2-6 

2.11 References.2-6 

3.0 COMPARISON OF ARSENIC TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES.3-1 

3.1 What Technologies Are Used to Treat Arsenic?.3-1 

3.2 What Technologies Are Used Most Often to Treat Arsenic? .3-1 

3.3 What Factors Affect Technology Selection for Drinking Water Treatment? .3-3 

3.4 How Effective Are Arsenic Treatment Technologies? .3-4 

3.5 What Are Special Considerations for Retrofitting Existing Water Treatment Systems?.3-4 

3.6 How Do I Screen Arsenic Treatment Technologies?.3-5 

3.7 What Does Arsenic Treatment Cost?.3-6 

3.8 References.3-7 

PART II ARSENIC TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY SUMMARIES 

PART IIA ARSENIC TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES APPLICABLE TO SOIL AND WASTE 

4.0 SOLIDIFICATION AND STABILIZATION TREATMENT FOR ARSENIC .4-1 

5.0 VITRIFICATION FOR ARSENIC.5-1 

6.0 SOIL WASHING/ACID EXTRACTION FOR ARSENIC . . . ..6-1 

7.0 PYROMETALLURGICAL RECOVERY FOR ARSENIC .7-1 

8.0 IN SITU SOIL FLUSHING FOR ARSENIC .8-1 

PART IIB ARSENIC TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES APPLICABLE TO WATER 

9.0 PRECIPITATION/COPRECIPITATION FOR ARSENIC.9-1 

10.0 MEMBRANE FILTRATION FOR ARSENIC. 10-1 

II. 0 ADSORPTION TREATMENT FOR ARSENIC. 11-1 


l 






































12.0 ION EXCHANGE FOR ARSENIC. 12-1 

13.0 PERMEABLE REACTIVE BARRIERS FOR ARSENIC . 13-1 

PART IIC ARSENIC TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES APPLICABLE TO SOIL, WASTE, AND 
WATER 

14.0 ELECTROKINETIC TREATMENT OF ARSENIC. 14-1 

15.0 PHYTOREMEDIATION TREATMENT OF ARSENIC. 15-1 

16.0 BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT FOR ARSENIC. 16-1 

APPENDICES 

APPENDIX A - LITERATURE SEARCH RESULTS (available only in on-line version) . A-l 

APPENDIX B - SUPERFUND SITES WITH ARSENIC AS A CONSTITUENT OF CONCERN. B-l 

11 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table Page 


1.1 Arsenic Treatment Technology Descriptions.1-3 

1.2 Summary of Key Data and Findings .1-4 

2.1 Number of Superfund Sites with Arsenic as a Contaminant of Concern by Media.2-2 

2.2 Number of Superfund Sites with Arsenic as a Contaminant of Concern by Site Type .2-4 

3.1 Applicability of Arsenic Treatment Technologies.3-9 

3.2 Arsenic Treatment Technologies Screening Matrix. 3-10 

3.3 Available Arsenic Treatment Cost Data. 3-15 

3.4 Summary of Cost Data for Treatment of Arsenic in Drinking Water . 3-17 

4.1 Solidification/Stabilization Treatment Performance Data for Arsenic.4-6 

4.2 Long-Term Solidification/Stabilization Treatment Performance Data for Arsenic . 4-12 

5.1 Vitrification Treatment Performance Data for Arsenic .5-5 

6.1 Soil Washing/Acid Extraction Treatment Performance Data for Arsenic .6-4 

7.1 Pyrometallurgical Treatment Performance Data for Arsenic.7-4 

8.1 In Situ Soil Flushing Treatment Performance Data for Arsenic.8-4 

9.1 Precipitation/Coprecipitation Treatment Performance Data for Arsenic.9-7 

10.1 Membrane Filtration Treatment Performance Data for Arsenic. 10-5 

11.1 Adsorption Treatment Performance Data for Arsenic . 11-6 

12.1 Ion Exchange Treatment Performance Data for Arsenic. 12-5 

13.1 Permeable Reactive Barrier Treatment Performance Data for Arsenic . 13-6 

14.1 Electrokinetics Treatment Performance Data for Arsenic . 14-5 

15.1 Phytoremediation Treatment Performance Data for Arsenic. 15-5 

16.1 Biological Treatment Performance Data for Arsenic. 16-4 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure Page 


2.1 Top Twelve Contaminants of Concern at Superfund Sites .2-3 

2.2 Number of Applications of Arsenic Treatment Technologies at Superfund Sites .2-4 

3.1 Number of Identified Applications of Arsenic Treatment Technologies for Soil and Waste.3-2 

3.2 Number of Identified Applications of Arsenic Treatment Technologies for Water.3-2 


ii 







































LIST OF FIGURES (continued) 


Figure Page 


3.3 Number of Identified Applications of Arsenic Treatment Technologies for Soil, Waste, and Water ... 3 - 3 

4.1 Binders and Reagents Used for Solidification/Stabilization of Arsenic for 21 Identified Superfund 

Remedial Action Projects.4-1 

4.2 Scale of Identified Solidification/Stabilization Projects for Arsenic Treatment.4-2 

5.1 Scale of Identified Vitrification Projects for Arsenic Treatment.5-2 

6.1 Scale of Identified Soil Washing/Acid Extraction Projects for Arsenic Treatment.6-1 

7.1 Scale of Identified Pyrometallurgical Recovery Projects for Arsenic Treatment.7-1 

8.1 Scale of Identified In Situ Soil Flushing Projects for Arsenic Treatment .8-1 

9.1 Scale of Identified Precipitaition/Coprecipitation Projects for Arsenic Treatment .9-2 

10.1 Scale of Identified Membrane Filtration Projects for Arsenic Treatment . 10-2 

11.1 Scale of Identified Adsorption Projects for Arsenic Treatment. 11-2 

12.1 Scale of Identified Ion Exchange Projects for Arsenic Treatment. 12-2 

13.1 Scale of Identified Permeable Reactive barrier Projects for Arsenic Treatment . 13-3 

14.1 Scale of Identified Electrokinetics Projects for Arsenic Treatment. 14-3 

15.1 Scale of Identified Phytoremediation Projects for Arsenic Treatment. 15-2 

16.1 Scale of Identified Biological Treatment Projects for Arsenic Treatment. 16-2 


in 


















LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 


AA 

Activated alumina 

MF 

Microfiltration 

AC 

Activated carbon 

MHO 

Metallurgie-Hoboken-Overpelt 

ASR 

Annual Status Report 

mgd 

million gallons per day 

As(III) 

Trivalent arsenic, common inorganic form 

mg/kg 

milligrams per kilogram 


in water is arsenite, H 3 As0 3 

mg/L 

milligrams per Liter 

As(V) 

Pentavalent arsenic, common inorganic 
form in water is arsenate, H 2 As0 4 ' 

NF 

Nanofiltration 

BDAT 

best demonstrated available technology 

NPL 

National Priorities List 

BTEX 

Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and 

OCLC 

Online Computer Library Center 


xylene 

ORD 

EPA Office of Research and Development 

CCA 

Chromated copper arsenate 

OU 

Operable Unit 

CERCLA 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act 

PAH 

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons 

CERCLIS 3 

CERCLA Information System 

PCB 

Polychlorinated biphenyls 

CLU-IN 

EPA’s CLeanUp INformation system 

POTW 

Publicly owned treatment works 

cws 

Community Water System 

PRB 

Permeable reactive barrier 

cy 

Cubic yard 

RCRA 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

DDT 

Dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane 

Redox 

Reduction/oxidation 

DI 

Deionized 

RO 

Reverse osmosis 

DOC 

Dissolved organic carbon 

ROD 

Record of Decision 

DoD 

Department of Defense 

SDWA 

Safe Drinking Water Act 

DOE 

Department of Energy 

SMZ 

surfactant modified zeolite 

EDTA 

Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid 

SNAP 

Superfund NPL Assessment Program 

EPA 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

S/S 

Solidification/Stabilization 

EPT 

Extraction Procedure Toxicity Test 

svoc 

Semivolatile organic compounds 

FRTR 

Federal Remediation Technologies 
Roundtable 

TCLP 

Toxicity Characteristic Leaching 

Procedure 

ft 

feet 

TNT 

2,3,6-trinitrotoluene 

GJO 

DOE’s Grand Junction Office 

TWA 

Total Waste Analysis 

gpd 

gallons per day 

UF 

Ultrafiltration 

gP m 

gallons per minute 

VOC 

Volatile organic compounds 

HTMR 

High temperature metals recovery 

WET 

Waste Extraction Test 

MCL 

Maximum Contaminant Level 
(enforceable drinking water standard) 

ZVI 

Zero valent iron 


IV 


FOREWORD 


The purpose of this report is to provide a synopsis of the availability, performance, and cost of 13 arsenic treatment 
technologies for soil, water, and waste. Its intended audience includes hazardous waste site managers; generators 
and treaters of arsenic-contaminated waste and wastewater; owners and operators of drinking water treatment plants; 
regulators; and the interested public. 

There is a growing need for cost-effective arsenic treatment. The presence of arsenic in the environment can pose a 
risk to human health. Historical and current industrial use of arsenic has resulted in soil and groundwater 
contamination that may require remediation. Some industrial wastes and wastewaters currently being produced 
require treatment to remove or immobilize arsenic. In addition, arsenic must be removed from some sources of 
drinking water before they can be used. 

Recently the EPA reduced the maximum contaminant level (MCL) for arsenic in drinking water from 0.050 mg/L to 
0.010 mg/L, effective in 2006. Current and future drinking water and groundwater treatment systems will require 
better-performing technologies to achieve this lower level. EPA recently prepared an issue paper, Proven 
Alternatives for Aboveground Treatment of Arsenic in Groundwater, that describes four technologies 
(precipitation/coprecipitation, adsorption, ion exchange, and membrane filtration) for removing arsenic from water. 
The paper also discusses special considerations for retrofitting systems to meet the lower arsenic drinking water 
standard. This information is incorporated in this report, as well as details on emerging approaches, such as 
phytoremediation and electrokinetics, for addressing arsenic in groundwater. 

This report is intended to be used as a screening tool for arsenic treatment technologies. It provides descriptions of 
the theory, design, and operation of the technologies; information on commercial availability and use; performance 
and cost data, where available; and a discussion of factors affecting effectiveness and cost. As a technology 
overview document, the information can serve as a starting point for identifying options for arsenic treatment. The 
feasibility of particular technologies will depend heavily on site-specific factors, and final treatment and remedy 
decisions will require further analysis, expertise, and possibly treatability studies. 


v 


NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER 


Preparation of this report has been funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Technology 
Innovation Office (TIO) under Contract Numbers 68-W-99-003 and 68-W-02-034. Information in this report is 
derived from numerous sources (including personal communications with experts in the field), some of which have 
been peer-reviewed. This study has undergone EPA and external review by subject-matter experts. Mention of 
trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. 

A PDF version of Arsenic Treatment Technologies for Soil, Waste, and Water, is available for viewing or 
downloading from the Hazardous Waste Cleanup Information (CLU-IN) system web site at http://clu-in.org/arsenic. 
A limited number of printed copies are available free of charge, and may be ordered via the web site, by mail or by 
facsimile from: 

U.S. EPA/National Service Center for Environmental Publications (NSCEP) 

P.O. Box 42419 
Cincinnati, OH 45242-2419 
Telephone: (513) 489-8190 or (800) 490-9198 
Fax: (513)489-8695 


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

Special acknowledgment is given to the federal and state staff and other remediation professionals for providing 
information for this document. Their cooperation and willingness to share their expertise on arsenic treatment 
technologies encourages their application at other sites. Contributors to the report included: U.S. EPA Office of 
Groundwater and Drinking Water; U.S. EPA National Risk Management Research Laboratory; U.S. EPA Office of 
Emergency and Remedial Response; U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste; U.S. EPA Region I; U.S. EPA Region III; 
David Ellis and Hilton Frey of Dupont; Richard M. Markey and James C. Redwine of Southern Company; James D. 
Navratil of Clemson University; Robert G. Robbins of the Aquamin Science Consortium International; Cindy 
Schreier of Prima Environmental; David Smythe of the University of Waterloo; Enid J. "Jeri" Sullivan of the Los 
Alamos National Laboratory; and G. B. Wickramanayake of the Battelle Memorial Institute. 


vi 


PARTI 

OVERVIEW AND FINDINGS 









1.0 


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This report contains information on the current state of 
the treatment of soil, waste, and water containing 
arsenic, a contaminant that can be difficult to treat and 
may cause a variety of adverse health effects in humans. 
This information can help managers at sites with 
arsenic-contaminated media, generators of arsenic- 
contaminated waste and wastewater, and owners and 
operators of drinking water treatment plants to: 

• Identify proven and effective arsenic treatment 
technologies 

• Screen those technologies based on effectiveness, 
treatment goals, application-specific characteristics, 
and cost 

• Apply experience from sites with similar treatment 
challenges 

• Find more detailed arsenic treatment information 

Arsenic is in many industrial raw materials, products, 
and wastes, and is a contaminant of concern in soil and 
groundwater at many remediation sites. Because 
arsenic readily changes valence state and reacts to form 
species with varying toxicity and mobility, effective 
treatment of arsenic can be difficult. Treatment can 
result in residuals that, under some environmental 
conditions, become more toxic and mobile. In addition, 
the recent reduction in the maximum contaminant level 
(MCL) for arsenic in drinking water from 0.050 to 
0.010 mg/L will impact technology selection and 
application for drinking water treatment, and could 
result in lower treatment goals for remediation of 
arsenic-contaminated sites. A lower treatment goal may 
affect the selection, design, and operation of arsenic 
treatment systems. 

This report identifies 13 technologies to treat arsenic in 
soil, waste, and water. Table 1.1 provides brief 
descriptions of these technologies. Part II of this report 
contains more detailed information about each 
technology. 

Table 1.2 summarizes the technology applications and 
performance identified for this report. The table 
provides information on the number of projects that met 
certain current or revised regulatory standards, 
including the RCRA regulatory threshold for the 
toxicity characteristic of 5.0 mg/L leachable arsenic, the 
former MCL of 0.050 mg/L arsenic, and the revised 
MCL of 0.010 mg/L. The table presents information for 
solid-phase media (soil and waste) and aqueous media 
(water, including groundwater, surface water, drinking 
water, and wastewater). The technologies used to treat 
one type of media typically show similar applicability 
and effectiveness when applied to a similar media. For 
example, technologies used to treat arsenic in soil have 
about the same applicability and effectiveness, and are 
used with similar frequency, to treat solid industrial 


wastes. Similarly, technologies used to treat one type 
of water (e.g., groundwater) typically show similar 
applicability, effectiveness, and frequency of use when 
treating another type of water (e.g., surface water). 

Soil and Waste Treatment Technologies 

In general, soil and waste are treated by immobilizing 
the arsenic using solidification/stabilization (S/S). This 
technology is usually capable of reducing the 
teachability of arsenic to below 5.0 mg/L (as measured 
by the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure 
[TCLP]), which is a common treatment goal for soil and 
waste. S/S is generally the least expensive technology 
for treatment of arsenic-contaminated soil and waste. 

Pyrometallurgical processes are applicable to some soil 
and waste from metals mining and smelting industries. 
However, the information gathered for this report did 
not indicate any current users of these technologies for 
arsenic in the U. S. Other soil and waste treatment 
technologies, including vitrification, soil washing/acid 
extraction, and soil flushing, have had only limited 
application to the treatment of arsenic. Although these 
technologies may be capable of effectively treating 
arsenic, data on performance are limited. In addition, 
these technologies tend to be more expensive than S/S. 

Water Treatment Technologies 

Based on the information gathered for this report, 
precipitation/coprecipitation is frequently used to treat 
arsenic-contaminated water, and is capable of treating a 
wide range of influent concentrations to the revised 
MCL for arsenic. The effectiveness of this technology 
is less likely to be reduced by characteristics and 
contaminants other than arsenic, compared to other 
water treatment technologies. It is also capable of 
treating water characteristics or contaminants other than 
arsenic, such as hardness or heavy metals. Systems 
using this technology generally require skilled 
operators; therefore, precipitation/coprecipitation is 
more cost effective at a large scale where labor costs 
can be spread over a larger amount of treated water 
produced. 

The effectiveness of adsorption and ion exchange for 
arsenic treatment is more likely than precipitation/ 
coprecipitation to be affected by characteristics and 
contaminants other than arsenic. However, these 
technologies are capable of treating arsenic to the 
revised MCL. Small capacity systems using these 
technologies tend to have lower operating and 
maintenance costs, and require less operator expertise. 
Adsorption and ion exchange tend to be used more 
often when arsenic is the only contaminant to be 
treated, for relatively smaller systems, and as a 
polishing technology for the effluent from larger 
systems. Membrane filtration is used less frequently 




because it tends to have higher costs and produce a 
larger volume of residuals than other arsenic treatment 
technologies. 

Innovative Technologies 

Innovative technologies, such as permeable reactive 
barriers, biological treatment, phytoremediation, and 
electrokinetic treatment, are also being used to treat 
arsenic-contaminated soil, waste, and water. The 
references identified for this report contain information 
about only a few applications of these technologies at 
full scale. However, they may be used to treat arsenic 
more frequently in the future. Additional treatment data 
are needed to determine their applicability and 
effectiveness. 

Permeable reactive barriers are used to treat 
groundwater in situ. This technology tends to have 
lower operation and maintenance costs than ex situ 
(pump and treat) technologies, and typically requires a 
treatment time of many years. This report identified 
three full-scale applications of this technology, but 
treatment data were available for only one application. 

In that application, a permeable reactive barrier is 
treating arsenic to below the revised MCL. 

Biological treatment for arsenic is used primarily to 
treat water above-ground in processes that use 
microorganisms to enhance precipitation/ 
coprecipitation. Bioleaching of arsenic from soil has 
also been tested on a bench scale. This technology may 
require pretreatment or addition of nutrients and other 
treatment agents to encourage the growth of key 
microorganisms. 

Phytoremediation is an in situ technology intended to be 
applicable to soil, waste, and water. This technology 
tends to have low capital, operating, and maintenance 
costs relative to other arsenic treatment technologies 
because it relies on the activity and growth of plants. 
However, the effectiveness of this technology may be 
reduced by a variety of factors, such as the weather, soil 
and groundwater contaminants and characteristics, the 
presence of weeds or pests, and other factors. The 
references identified for this report contained 
information on one full-scale application of this 
technology to arsenic treatment. 

Electrokinetic treatment is an in situ technology 
intended to be applicable to soil, waste and water. This 
technology is most applicable to fine-grained soils, such 
as clays. The references identified for this report 
contained information on one full-scale application of 
this technology to arsenic treatment. 




Table 1.1 

Arsenic Treatment Technology Descriptions 

Technology 

Description 


Technologies for Soil and Waste Treatment 


Solidification/ 

Stabilization 

Physically binds or encloses contaminants within a stabilized mass and chemically reduces the 
hazard potential of a waste by converting the contaminants into less soluble, mobile, or toxic 
forms. 

Vitrification 

High temperature treatment that reduces the mobility of metals by incorporating them into a 
chemically durable, leach resistant, vitreous mass. The process also may cause contaminants 
to volatilize, thereby reducing their concentration in the soil and waste. 

Soil Washing/ 

Acid Extraction 

An ex situ technology that takes advantage of the behavior of some contaminants to 
preferentially adsorb onto the fines fraction of soil. The soil is suspended in a wash solution 
and the fines are separated from the suspension, thereby reducing the contaminant 
concentration in the remaining soil. 

Pyrometallurgical 

Recovery 

Uses heat to convert a contaminated waste feed into a product with a high concentration of the 
contaminant that can be reused or sold. 

In Situ Soil 
Flushing 

Extracts organic and inorganic contaminants from soil by using water, a solution of chemicals 
in water, or an organic extractant, without excavating the contaminated material itself. The 
solution is injected into or sprayed onto the area of contamination, causing the contaminants 
to become mobilized by dissolution or emulsification. After passing through the 
contamination zone, the contaminant-bearing flushing solution is collected and pumped to the 
surface for treatment, discharge, or reinjection. 


Technologies for Water Treatment 


Precipitation/ 

Coprecipitation 

Uses chemicals to transform dissolved contaminants into an insoluble solid or form another 
insoluble solid onto which dissolved contaminants are adsorbed. The solid is then removed 
from the liquid phase by clarification or filtration. 

Membrane 

Filtration 

Separates contaminants from water by passing it through a semi-permeable barrier or 
membrane. The membrane allows some constituents to pass, while blocking others. 

Adsorption 

Concentrates solutes at the surface of a sorbent, thereby reducing their concentration in the 
bulk liquid phase. The adsorption media is usually packed into a column. As contaminated 
water is passed through the column, contaminants are adsorbed. 

Ion Exchange 

Exchanges ions held electrostatically on the surface of a solid with ions of similar charge in a 
solution. The ion exchange media is usually packed into a column. As contaminated water is 
passed through the column, contaminants are removed. 

Permeable 

Reactive Barriers 

Walls containing reactive media that are installed across the path of a contaminated 
groundwater plume to intercept the plume. The barrier allows water to pass through while the 
media remove the contaminants by precipitation, degradation, adsorption, or ion exchange. 


Technologies for Soil, Waste, and Water Treatment 


Electrokinetic 

Treatment 

Based on the theory that a low-density current applied to soil will mobilize contaminants in 
the form of charged species. A current passed between electrodes inserted into the subsurface 
is intended to cause water, ions, and particulates to move through the soil. Contaminants 
arriving at the electrodes can be removed by means of electroplating or electrodeposition, 
precipitation or coprecipitation, adsorption, complexing with ion exchange resins, or by 
pumping of water (or other fluid) near the electrode. 

Phytoremediation 

Involves the use of plants to degrade, extract, contain, or immobilize contaminants in soil, 
sediment, and groundwater. 

Biological 

Treatment 

Involves the use of microorganisms that act directly on contaminant species or create ambient 
conditions that cause the contaminant to leach from soil or precipitate/coprecipitate from 
water. 























Table 1.2 

Summary of Key Data and Findings 


u 

Number of 

Applications 

Achieving 

<0.010 mg/L 

Arsenic 

I 

• 

• 

I 

i 

ON 

04 

O' 

04 

rj- 

o 

I 

o 

QJ 

CG 

£ 

Number of 
Applications 
Achieving <0.050 
mg/L Arsenic 

I 

I 

■ 

i 

I 

36 


04 

m 

NO 

- 

• 

- 

Soil and Waste 

Number of 
Applications 
Achieving <5.0 
mg/L Leachable 
Arsenic 

E'¬ 

en 

r~~ 

i 

04 

l 

i 

1 

1 

i 

1 

1 

I 

1 

Number of Applications Identified” 
(Number with Performance Data) 

Total 

44 (42) 

16(7) 

(0)6 

4(2) 

_ 

4(0) 

68(51) 

33 (4) 

21(12) 


(9)01 

(I)Z. 

o 

o- 

5(2) 

Full 

Scale 

34(32) 

6(2) 

4(0) 

4(2) 

2(0) 

45 (30) 

04 

04 

14(8) 

7(4) 

3(1) 

1(0) 

o 

o 

Pilot 

Scale 

10(10) 

o 

3(0) 

o 

(0)3 

24 (22) 

25(2) 

O' 

o 

(1)3 

3(1) 

2(0) 

3(2) 

Bench 

Scale 

NC 

NC 

o 

04 

o 

o 

NC 

o 

NO 

NC 

NC 


3(0) 

4(0) 

— 

Media Treated 

Water 

i 

I 

' 

' 

1 

♦ 

♦ 

♦ 

♦ 

♦ 

♦ 

4 

♦ 

Soil 

and 

Waste 

♦ 

♦ 

♦ 

♦ 

♦ 

I 

1 

i 

l 

i 

♦ 

4 

♦ 

Technology 

Solidification/Stabilization 

Vitrification 

Soil Washing/Acid Extraction 

Pyrometallurgical Recovery 

In Situ Soil Flushing 

Precipitation/Coprecipitation 

-1 

Membrane Filtration 

Adsorption 

Ion Exchange 

Permeable Reactive Barriers 

Electrokinetics 

Phytoremediation 

Biological Treatment 


a Applications were identified through a search of available technical literature (See Sections 2.9 and 2.10). The number of applications include only those 
identified during the preparation of this report, and are not comprehensive. Limited information on treatment of industrial wastes and wastewaters was 
identified, therefore the table may not be representative of these types of applications. 

NC = Data not collected - = Not applicable 

Source: Adapted from data in Sections 4.0 to 16.0 of this report 



























2.0 INTRODUCTION 

2.1 Who Needs to Know about Arsenic Treatment 
Technologies? 

This report was prepared to provide information on the 
current state of arsenic treatment for soil, waste, and 
water. The report may be used to: 

• Identify proven and effective arsenic treatment 
technologies 

• Screen those technologies based on effectiveness, 
treatment goals, application-specific characteristics, 
and cost 

• Apply experience from sites with similar treatment 
challenges 

• Find more detailed arsenic treatment information 

The report may be used by remediation site managers, 
hazardous waste generators (for example, wood treaters, 
herbicide manufacturers, mine and landfill operators), 
drinking water treatment plant designers and operators, 
and the general public to help screen arsenic treatment 
options. 

Arsenic is a common inorganic element found widely in 
the environment. It is in many industrial products, 
wastes, and wastewaters, and is a contaminant of 
concern at many remediation sites. Arsenic- 
contaminated soil, waste, and water must be treated by 
removing the arsenic or immobilizing it. Because 
arsenic readily changes valence states and reacts to 
form species with varying toxicity and mobility, 
effective, long-term treatment of arsenic can be 
difficult. In some disposal environments arsenic has 
leached from arsenic-bearing wastes at high 
concentrations (Ref. 2.11). 

Recently, the EPA reduced the maximum contaminant 
level (MCL) for arsenic in drinking water from 0.050 
mg/L to 0.010 mg/L, effective in 2006 (Ref. 2.9). 
Drinking water suppliers may need to add new 
treatment processes or retrofit existing treatment 
systems to meet the revised MCL. In addition, it may 
affect Superfund remediation sites and other sites that 
base cleanup goals on the arsenic drinking water MCL. 
This report provides information needed to help meet 
the challenges of arsenic treatment. 

2.2 Background 

Where Does Arsenic Come From? 

Arsenic occurs naturally in rocks, soil, water, air, 
plants, and animals. Natural activities such as volcanic 
action, erosion of rocks, and forest fires, can release 
arsenic into the environment. Industrial products 
containing arsenic include wood preservatives, paints. 


dyes, pharmaceuticals, herbicides, and semi¬ 
conductors. The man-made sources of arsenic in the 
environment include mining and smelting operations; 
agricultural applications; burning of fossil fuels and 
wastes; pulp and paper production; cement 
manufacturing; and former agricultural uses of arsenic 
(Ref. 2.1). 

What Are the Health Effects of Arsenic? 

Many studies document the adverse health effects in 
humans exposed to inorganic arsenic compounds. A 
discussion of those effects is available in the following 
documents: 

• National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; 
Arsenic and Clarifications to Compliance and New 
Source Contaminants Monitoring (66 FR 6976 / 
January 22, 2001) (Ref. 2.1) 

• The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease 
Registry (ATSDR) ToxFAQs™ for Arsenic (Ref. 
2.13). ' 

How Does Arsenic Chemistry Affect Treatment? 

Arsenic is a metalloid or inorganic semiconductor that 
can form inorganic and organic compounds. It occurs 
with valence states of -3, 0, +3 (arsenite), and +5 
(arsenate). However, the valence states of -3 and 0 
occur only rarely in nature. This discussion of arsenic 
chemistry focuses on inorganic species of As(III) and 
As(V). Inorganic compounds of arsenic include 
hydrides (e.g., arsine), halides, oxides, acids, and 
sulfides (Ref. 2.4). 

The toxicity and mobility of arsenic varies with its 
valence state and chemical form. Arsenite and arsenate 
are the dominant species in surface water and sea water, 
and organic arsenic species can be found in natural gas 
and shale oil (Ref. 2.12). Different chemical 
compounds containing arsenic exhibit varying degrees 
of toxicity and solubility. 

Arsenic readily changes its valence state and chemical 
form in the environment. Some conditions that may 
affect arsenic valence and speciation include (Ref. 2.7): 

• pH - in the pH range of 4 to 10, As(V) species 
are negatively charged in water, and the 
predominant As(III) species is neutral in 
charge 

• redox potential 

• the presence of complexing ions, such as ions 
of sulfur, iron, and calcium 

• microbial activity 

Adsorption-desorption reactions can also affect the 
mobility of arsenic in the environment. Clays, 


2 - 1 


carbonaceous materials, and oxides of iron, aluminum, 
and manganese are soil components that may participate 
in adsorptive reactions with arsenic (Ref. 2.7). 

The unstable nature of arsenic species may make it 
difficult to treat or result in treated wastes whose 
toxicity and mobility can change under some 
environmental conditions. Therefore, the successful 
treatment and long-term disposal of arsenic requires an 
understanding of arsenic chemistry and the disposal 
environment. 

2.3 How Often Does Arsenic Occur in Drinking 
Water? 

Arsenic is a fairly common environmental contaminant. 
Both groundwater (e.g., aquifers) and surface water 
(e.g., lakes and rivers) sources of drinking water can 
contain arsenic. The levels of arsenic are typically 
higher in groundwater sources. Arsenic levels in 
groundwater tend to vary geographically. In the U.S., 
Western states (AK, AZ, CA, ID, NV, OR, UT, and 
WA) tend to have the highest concentrations (>0.010 
mg/L), while states in the North Central (MT, ND, SD, 
WY), Midwest Central (IL, IN, IA, MI, MN, OH, and 
WI), and New England (CT, MA, ME, NH, NJ, NY, RI, 
and VT) regions tend to have low to moderate 
concentrations (0.002 to 0.010 mg/L). However, some 
portions of these areas may have no detected arsenic in 
drinking water. Other regions of the U.S. may have 
isolated areas of high concentration. EPA estimates that 
4,000 drinking water treatment systems may require 
additional treatment technologies, a retrofit of existing 
treatment technologies, or other measures to achieve the 
revised MCL for arsenic. An estimated 5.4% of 
community water systems (CWSs) using groundwater 
as a drinking water source and 0.7% of CWSs using 
surface water have average arsenic levels above 0.010 
mg/L. (Ref. 2.1) 

2.4 How' Often Does Arsenic Occur at Hazardous 
Waste Sites? 

Hazardous waste sites fall under several clean-up 
programs, such as Superfund, Resource Conservation 
and Recovery Act (RCRA) corrective actions, and state 
cleanup programs. This section contains information 
on the occurrence and treatment of arsenic at National 
Priorities List (NPL) sites, known as Superfund sites. 
Information on arsenic occurrence and treatment at 
Superfund sites was complied from the CERCLIS 3 
database (Ref. 2.3), the Superfund NPL Assessment 
Program (SNAP) database, and the database supporting 


the document " Treatment Technologies for Site 
Cleanup: Annual Status Report (Tenth Edition)" (Ref. 
2.8). The information sources identified for this report 
did not contain information on arsenic occurrence and 
treatment at RCRA corrective action and state cleanup 
program sites. 

Table 2.1 lists the number of Superfund sites with 
arsenic as a contaminant of concern by media. 
Groundwater and soil were the most common media 
contaminated with arsenic at 380 and 372 sites, 
respectively. The number of sites in Table 2.1 exceeds 
the number of total sites with arsenic contamination 
(568) because each site may have more than one type of 
media contaminated with arsenic. 


Table 2.1 

Number of Superfund Sites with Arsenic as a 
Contaminant of Concern by Media 


Media Type 

Number of Sites 

Groundwater 

380 

Soil 

372 

Sediment 

154 

Surface Water 

86 

Debris 

77 

Sludge 

45 

Solid Waste 

30 

Leachate 

24 

Other 

21 

Liquid Waste 

12 

Air 

8 

Residuals 

1 


Source: Ref. 2.3 


Arsenic occurs frequently at NPL sites. Figure 2.1 
shows the most common contaminants of concern 
present at Superfund sites for which a Record of 
Decision (ROD) has been signed, through FY 1999, the 
most recent year for which such information is 
available. Arsenic is the second most common 
contaminant of concern (after lead), occurring at 568 
sites (47% of all sites on the NPL with RODs). 


2-2 




















700 


Figure 2.1 

Top Twelve Contaminants of Concern at Superfund Sites 


<*> 

a / 

■w 

cZ 

o 

i- 

a> 

X 

E 

3 

z 


600 


500 


400 


300 


200 


100 


0 


591 




V 




568 


529 


518 


iji-- 


■V 

V' 

« * 

v-v 

•«** 

■*;.*: 

h-: 

r *■ 1 
«"■ 


457 


425 




5? 








,cA 






C^° 






& 


A 0 






CP 






& 


384 

i 


382 


375 


<>< 

j5< 

* 

a 
<>:; 
fv V 

v/V 

KX 

: 'v< 

; <X 

yv 




373 


357 


:x?- 

& 

,v> 

m. 


A 


^ V v 


352 


1 

W 

I 

vV 


JT 

yy 




Source: Ref. 2.3 


Table 2.2 lists the number of Superfund sites with 
arsenic as a contaminant of concern by site type. The 
most common site types were landfills and other 
disposal facilities, chemicals and allied products, and 
lumber and wood products. Some sites may have more 
than one site type. 

Figure 2.2 shows the use of treatment technologies to 
address arsenic at Superfund sites. These projects may 
be planned, ongoing, or completed. Solidification/ 
stabilization was the most common treatment 
technology for soil and waste, used in 45 projects to 
treat arsenic. The most common treatment technology 
for water was precipitation/coprecipitation, which is 
known to have been used in nine projects. 


More detail on these applications is provided in the 
technology-specific sections (Sections 4.0 through 
16.0). Information in Figure 2.2 on the treatment of 
contaminant sources (i.e., contaminated soil, sludge, 
sediment, or other environmental media excluding 
groundwater) and in situ groundwater treatment is 
based on a detailed review of RODs and contacts with 
RPMs. A similar information source for pump and treat 
technologies (precipitation/coprecipitation, membrane 
filtration, adsorption, ion exchange) for groundwater 
containing arsenic at Superfund Sites was not available. 


2-3 

















































Table 2.2 Figure 2.2 

Number of Superfund Sites with Arsenic as a Number of Applications of Arsenic Treatment 

Contaminant of Concern by Site Type Technologies at Superfund Sites 1 ' 


Site Type 

Number of 
Sites h 

Landfills and Other Disposal 

209 

Chemicals and Allied Products 

42 

Lumber and Wood Products 

33 

Groundwater Plume Site 

26 

Metal Fabrication and Finishing 

20 

Batteries and Scrap Metal 

18 

Military and Other Ordnance 

18 

Transportation Equipment 

15 

Primary Metals Processing 

14 

Chemicals and Chemical Waste 

12 

Ordnance Production 

12 

Electrical Equipment 

11 

Radioactive Products 

9 

Product Storage and Distribution 

8 

Waste Oil and Used Oil 

8 

Metals 

6 

Drums and Tanks 

6 

Transportation 

5 

Research and Development 

5 

Other 3 

104 


Sources: Ref. 2.3, 2.15 

a Includes site types with fewer than 5 sites, sites 
whose site types were identified as “other’or 
“multiple”, and unspecified industrial waste 
facilities. 

b Some sites have more than one site type. 



Solidification/Stabilization 

■ 


Vitrification 

1 

OX 

_© 

"o 

Soil Washing/Acid Extraction 

□ 2 

Pyrometallurgical Recovery 

1 

U 

In Situ Soil Flushing 

32 

H 

Precipitation/Coprecipitation 

=] 9 

c 

Membrane Filtration 

0 

E 

Adsorption 

id 5 

QJ 

Ion Exchange 

32 

H 

Permeable Reactive Barriers 

S34 


Biological Treatment 

0 


Electrokinetics 

0 


Phytoremediation 

1 


a Information on the application of groundwater 
pump and treat technologies, including 
precipitation/coprecipitation, membrane filtration, 
adsorption, and ion exchange, is based on available 
data and is not comprehensive. 

2.5 What Are the Structure and Contents of the 
Report? 

Part I of this report, the Overview and Findings, 
contains an Executive Summary, an Introduction, and a 
Comparison of Arsenic Treatment Technologies. This 
Introduction describes the purpose of the report, 
presents background information, and summarizes the 
methodology used to gather and analyze data. The 
"Comparison of Technologies" Section (3.0) analyzes 
and compares the data gathered. 

Part II of this report contains 13 sections, each 
summarizing the available information for an arsenic 
treatment technology. Each summary includes a brief 
description of the technology, information about how it 
is used to treat arsenic, its status and scale, and 
available cost and performance data, including the 
amount and type of soil, waste, and water treated and a 
summary of the results of analyses of untreated soil, 
waste, and water and treatment residuals for total and 
leachable arsenic concentrations. The technology 
summaries are organized as follows: the technologies 
typically used to treat soil and waste appear first, in the 
order of their frequency of full-scale applications, 
followed by those typically used for water in the same 
order, and then by those used to treat soil, waste, and 
water. 


2-4 
































2.6 What Technologies and Media Are Addressed in 
the Report? 

This report provides information on the 13 technologies 
listed in Table 1.1. These technologies have been used 
at full scale for the treatment of arsenic in soil, waste, 
and water. For the purposes of this report, the term 
“soir includes soil, debris, sludge, sediments, and other 
solid-phase environmental media. Waste includes non- 
hazardous and hazardous solid waste generated by 
industry. Water includes groundwater, drinking water, 
non-hazardous and hazardous industrial wastewater, 
surface water, mine drainage, and leachate. 

2.7 How Is Technology Scale Defined? 

This report includes available information on bench-, 
pilot- and full-scale applications for the 13 
technologies. Full-scale projects include those used 
commercially to treat industrial wastes and those used 
to remediate an entire area of contamination. Pilot- 
scale projects are usually conducted in the field to test 
the effectiveness of the technology on a specific soil, 
waste, and water or to obtain information for scaling a 
treatment system up to full scale. Bench-scale projects 
are conducted on a small scale, usually in a laboratory 
to evaluate the technology’s ability to treat soil, waste, 
and water. These often occur during the early phases of 
technology development. 

The report focuses on full- and pilot-scale data. Bench- 
scale data are presented only when less than 5 full-scale 
applications of a technology were identified. For the 
technologies with at least 5 identified full-scale 
applications (solidification/stabilization, vitrification, 
precipitation/coprecipitation, adsorption, and ion 
exchange), the report does not include bench-scale data. 

2.8 How Are Treatment Trains Addressed? 

Treatment trains consist of two or more technologies 
used together, either integrated into a single process or 
operated as a series of treatments in sequence. The 
technologies in a train may treat the same contaminant. 
The information gathered for this report included many 
projects that used treatment trains. A common 
treatment train used for arsenic in water includes an 
oxidation step to change arsenic from As(III) to its less 
soluble As(V) state, followed by precipitation/ 
coprecipitation and filtration to remove the precipitate. 

Some trains are employed when one technology alone is 
not capable of treating all of the contaminants. For 
example, at the Baird and McGuire Superfund Site 
(Table 9.1), an above-ground system consisting of air 
stripping, metals precipitation, and activated carbon 
adsorption was used to treat groundwater contaminated 
with volatile organic compounds (VOCs), arsenic, and 


semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs). In this 
treatment train the air stripping was intended to treat 
VOCs, the precipitation, arsenic, and the activated 
carbon adsorption, SVOCs and any remaining VOCs. 

In many cases, the available information does not 
specify the technologies within the train that are 
intended to treat arsenic. Influent and effluent 
concentrations, where available, often were provided 
for the entire train, and not the individual components. 
In such cases, engineering judgement was used to 
identify the technology that treated arsenic. For 
example, at the Greenwood Chemical Superfund site 
(Table 9.1), a treatment train consisting of metals 
precipitation, filtration, UV oxidation and carbon 
adsorption was used to treat groundwater contaminated 
with arsenic, VOCs, halogenated VOCs, and SVOCs. 
The precipitation and filtration were assumed to remove 
arsenic, and the UV oxidation and carbon adsorption 
were assumed to have only a negligible effect on the 
arsenic concentration. 

Where a train included more than one potential arsenic 
treatment technology, all arsenic treatment technologies 
were assumed to contribute to arsenic treatment, unless 
available information indicated otherwise. For 
example, at the Higgins Farm Superfund site, arsenic- 
contaminated groundwater was treated with 
precipitation and ion exchange (Tables 9.1 and 12.1). 
Information about this treatment is presented in both the 
precipitation/coprecipitation (Section 9.0) and ion 
exchange (Section 12.0) sections. 

Activated carbon adsorption is most commonly used to 
treat organic contaminants. This technology is 
generally ineffective on As(III) (Ref. 2.14). Where 
treatment trains included activated carbon adsorption 
and another arsenic treatment technology, it was 
assumed that activated carbon adsorption did not 
contribute to the arsenic treatment, unless the available 
information indicated otherwise. 

2.9 What Are the Sources of Information for This 
Report? 

This report is based on an electronic literature search 
and information gathered from readily-available data 
sources, including: 

• Documents and databases prepared by EPA, 
DOD, and DOE 

• Technical literature 

• Information supplied by vendors of treatment 
technologies 

• Internet sites 

• Information from technology experts 


2-5 


Most of the information sources used for this report 
contained information about treatments of 
environmental media and drinking water. Only limited 
information was identified about the treatment of 
industrial waste and wastewater containing arsenic. 

This does not necessarily indicate that treatment 
industrial wastes and wastewater containing arsenic 
occurs less frequently, because data on industrial 
treatments may be published less frequently. 

The authors and reviewers of this report identified these 
information sources based on their experience with 
arsenic treatment. In addition, a draft version of this 
report was presented at the U.S. EPA Workshop on 
Managing Arsenic Risks to the Environment, which 
was held in Denver, Colorado in May of 2001. 
Information gathered from this workshop and sources 
identified by workshop attendees were also reviewed 
and incorporated where appropriate. Proceedings for 
this workshop may be available from EPA in 2002. 

2.10 What Other Types of Literature Were 
Searched and Referenced for This Report? 

To identify recent and relevant documents containing 
information on the application of arsenic treatment 
technologies in addition to the sources listed in Section 
2.9, a literature search was conducted using the 
Dialog® and Online Computer Library Center (OCLC) 
services. The search was limited to articles published 
between January 1, 1998 and May 30, 2001 in order to 
ensure that the information gathered was current. The 
search identified documents that included in their title 
the words "arsenic," "treatment," and one of a list of 
key words intended to encompass the types of soil, 
waste, and water containing arsenic that might be 
subject to treatment. Those key words were: 


- Waste 

- Water 

- Sludge 

- Mine 

- Mining 

- Debris 

- Groundwater 

-Soil 

- Hazardous 

- Toxic 

- Sediment 

- Slag 


The Dialog® search identified 463 references, and the 
OCLC search found 45 references. Appendix A lists 
the title, author, and publication source for each of the 
508 references identified through the literature search. 
The search results were reviewed to identify the 
references (in English) that provided information on the 
treatment of waste that contains arsenic using one of the 
technologies listed in Table 1.1. Using this 
methodology, a total of 44 documents identified 
through the literature search were obtained and 
reviewed in detail to gather information for this report. 
These documents are identified in Appendix A with an 
asterisk (*). 


2.11 References 

2.1 U.S. EPA. National Primary Drinking Water 
Regulations; Arsenic and Clarifications to 
Compliance and New Source Contaminants 
Monitoring; Proposed Rule. Federal Register, Vol 
65, Number 121, p. 38888. June 22. 2000. 
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ars/arsenic.pdf. 

2.2 U.S. Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration. Occupational Safety and Health 
Guidelines for Arsenic, Organic Compounds (as 
As). November, 2001. 

http://www.osha-slc.gov/SLTC/healthguidelines/ 
arsenic/recognition, html. 

2.3 U.S. EPA Office of Emergency and Remedial 
Response. Comprehensive Environmental 
Response Compensation and Liability Information 
System database (CERCLIS 3). October 2001. 

2.4 Kirk-Othmer. "Arsenic and Arsenic Alloys." The 
Kirk-Othemer Encyclopedia of Chemical 
Technology, Volume 3. John Wiley and Sons, 
New York. 1992. 

2.5 Kirk-Othmer. "Arsenic Compounds" The Kirk- 
Othemer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, 
Volume 3. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 

1992. 

2.6 EPA. Treatment Technology Performance and 
Cost Data for Remediation of Wood Preserving 
Sites. Office of Research and Development. 
EPA-625-R-97-009. October 1997. 
http://epa.gov/ncepihom. 

2.7 Vance, David B. "Arsenic - Chemical Behavior 
and Treatment”. October, 2001. 
http://2the4.net/arsenicart.htm. 

2.8 EPA. Treatment Technologies for Site Cleanup: 
Annual Status Report (Tenth Edition). Office of 
Solid Waste and Emergency Response. EPA-542- 
R-01-004. February 2001. http://clu-in.org. 

2.9 U.S. EPA. National Primary Drinking Water 
Regulations; Arsenic and Clarifications to 
Compliance and New Source Contaminants 
Monitoring; Final Rule. Federal Register, 

Volume 66, Number 14, p. 6975-7066. January 

22 , 2001 . 

http://www.epa.gov/sbrefa/documents/pnl 14f.pdf 


2-6 


2.10 U.S. EP A Office of Water. Fact Sheet: EPA to 
Implement lOppb Standard for Arsenic in 
Drinking Water. EPA 815-F-01-010. October, 
2001. http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ars/ 
ars-oct-factsheet.html. 

2.11 Federal Register. Land Disposal Restrictions: 
Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 
Volume 65, Number 118. June 19, 2000. pp. 
37944.37946. 

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-WASTE/2000/ 
June/Day-19/fl 5392.htm 

2.12 National Research Council. Arsenic in Drinking 
Water. Washington, D.C. National Academy 
Press. 1999. 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/6444.html 

2.13 The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease 
Registry (ATSDR): ToxFAQs™ for Arsenic (12). 
July, 2001. 

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts2.html. 

2.14 U.S. EPA. Cost Analyses for Selected 
Groundwater Cleanup Projects: Pump and Treat 
Systems and Permeable Reactive Barriers, EPA- 
542-R-00-013, February 2001. http://clu-in.org 

2.15 U.S. EPA Office of Emergency and Remedial 
Response. Superfund NPL Assessment Program 
(SNAP) database. April 11,2002. 


2-7 









3.0 COMPARISON OF ARSENIC TREATMENT 
TECHNOLOGIES 

3.1 What Technologies Are Used to Treat Arsenic? 

This report identifies 13 technologies applicable to 
arsenic-contaminated soil, waste, and water. 
Technologies are considered applicable if they have 
been used at full scale to treat arsenic. 


Arsenic Treatment Technologies 

Soil and Waste Treatment Technologies 

• Solidification/ • Pyrometallurgical 

Stabilization Recovery 

• Vitrification • In Situ Soil Flushing 

• Soil Washing/Acid 
Extraction 

Water Treatment Technologies 

• Precipitation/ • Ion Exchange 

Coprecipitation • Permeable Reactive 

• Membrane Filtration Barriers 

• Adsorption 

Soil, Waste, and Water Treatment Technologies 

• Electrokinetics • Biological Treatment 

• Phytoremediation 


Table 3.1 summarizes their applicability to arsenic- 
contaminated media. The media treated by these 
technologies can be grouped into two general 
categories: soil and waste; and water. 

Technologies applicable to one type of soil and waste 
are typically applicable to other types. For example, 
solidification/stabilization has been used to effectively 
treat industrial waste, soil, sludge, and sediment. 
Similarly, technologies applicable to one type of water 
are generally applicable to other types. For example, 
precipitation/coprecipitation has been used to 
effectively treat industrial wastewaters, groundwater, 
and drinking water. 

3.2 What Technologies Are Used Most Often to 
Treat Arsenic? 

This section provides information on the number of 
treatment projects identified for each technology and 
estimates of the relative frequency of their application. 
Figures 3.1 to 3.3 show the number of treatment 
projects identified for each technology. Figure 3.1 
shows the number for technologies applicable to soil 
and waste based on available data. The most frequently 


used technology for soil and waste containing arsenic is 
solidification/stabilization. The available data show 
that this technology can effectively meet regulatory 
cleanup levels, is commercially available to treat both 
soil and waste, is usually less expensive, and generates 
a residual that typically does not require further 
treatment prior to disposal. 

Other arsenic treatment technologies for soil and waste 
are typically used for specific applications. 

Vitrification may be used when a combination of 
contaminants are present that cannot be effectively 
treated using solidification/stabilization. It has also 
been used when the vitrification residual could be sold 
as a commercial product. Flowever, vitrification 
typically requires large amounts of energy, can be more 
expensive than S/S, and may generate off-gasses 
containing arsenic. 

Soil washing/acid extraction is used to treat soil 
primarily. However, it is not applicable to all types of 
soil or to waste. Pyrometallurgical treatment has been 
used primarily to recycle arsenic from industrial wastes 
containing high concentrations of arsenic from metals 
refining and smelting operations. These technologies 
may not be applicable to soil and waste containing low 
concentrations of arsenic. In situ soil flushing treats 
soil in place, eliminating the need to excavate soil. 
However, no performance data were identified for the 
limited number of full-scale applications of this 
technology to arsenic. 

Figure 3.2 shows the number of treatment projects 
identified for technologies applicable to water. For 
water containing arsenic, the most frequently used 
technology is precipitation/coprecipitation. Based on 
the information gathered for this report, precipitation/ 
coprecipitation is frequently used to treat arsenic- 
contaminated water, and is capable of treating a wide 
range of influent concentrations to the revised MCL for 
arsenic. The effectiveness of this technology is less 
likely to be reduced by characteristics and contaminants 
other than arsenic, compared to other water treatment 
technologies. It is also capable of treating water 
characteristics or contaminants other than arsenic, such 
as hardness or heavy metals. Systems using this 
technology generally require skilled operators; 
therefore, precipitation/ coprecipitation is more cost 
effective at a large scale where labor costs can be 
spread over a larger amount of treated water produced. 

The effectiveness of adsorption and ion exchange for 
arsenic treatment is more likely than precipitation/ 
coprecipitation to be affected by characteristics and 
contaminants other than arsenic. However, these 
technologies are capable of treating arsenic to the 




Number of Applications Number of Applications 


Figure 3.1 

Number of Identified Applications of Arsenic Treatment Technologies for Soil and Waste 


58 




□ Full 

■ Pilot 

□ Bench 










19 


■ 


■ 1 1 no 0 0 


70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 


Solidification/ Vitrification* Soil Washing/ Pyrometallurgical In Situ Soil 

Stabilization* Acid Extraction Recovery Flushing 


* Bench-scale data not collected for this technology. 


Figure 3.2 

Number of Identified Applications of Arsenic Treatment Technologies for Water 


50 
45 
40 
35 
30 
25 
20 
15 
10 
5 

Precipitation/ Membrane Adsorption* Ion Exchange* Permeable Reactive 

Coprecipitation* Filtration " Barriers 


45 


□ Full 

m pilot 


□ Bench 

_24_25_ 


§= 1 . 


1 J <> 1 __1.0 rtoT" 


* Bench-scale data not collected for this technology. 


3-2 






















































































Figure 3.3 

Number of Identified Applications of Arsenic Treatment Technologies for Soil, Waste, and Water 


<*> 4 

c 

o 

1 3 


o 

© 

-3 

E 

3 

z 


0 


3 3 






, 

iL 






Electrokinetics 


Phytoremediation 


Biological 

Treatment 


revised MCL. Small capacity systems using these 
technologies tend to have lower operating and 
maintenance costs, and require less operator expertise. 
Adsorption and ion exchange tend to be used more 
often when arsenic is the only contaminant to be 
treated, for relatively smaller systems, and as a 
polishing technology for the effluent from larger 
systems. Membrane filtration is used less frequently 
because it tends to have higher costs and produce a 
larger volume of residuals than other arsenic treatment 
technologies. 

Permeable reactive barriers are used to treat 
groundwater in situ. This technology tends to have 
lower operation and maintenance costs than ex situ 
(pump and treat) technologies, and typically requires a 
treatment time of many years. This report identified 
three full-scale applications of this technology, but 
treatment data were available for only one application. 
In that application, a permeable reactive barrier is 
treating arsenic to below the revised MCL. 

Figure 3.3 shows the number of treatment projects 
identified for technologies applicable to soil, waste, and 
water. Three arsenic treatment technologies are 
generally applicable to soil, waste, and water: 
electrokinetics, phytoremediation, and biological 
treatment. These technologies have been applied in 
only a limited number of applications. 

Electrokinetic treatment is an in situ technology 
intended to be applicable to soil, waste and water. This 
technology is most applicable to fine-grained soils, such 
as clays. The references identified tor this report 


contained information on one full-scale application of 
this technology to arsenic treatment. 

Phytoremediation is an in situ technology intended to be 
applicable to soil, waste, and water. This technology 
tends to have low capital, operating, and maintenance 
costs relative to other arsenic treatment technologies 
because it relies on the activity and growth of plants. 
However, this technology tends to be less robust. The 
references identified for this report contained 
information on one full-scale application of this 
technology to arsenic treatment. 

Biological treatment for arsenic is used primarily to 
treat water above-ground in processes that use 
microorganisms to enhance precipitation/ 
coprecipitation. Bioleaching of arsenic from soil has 
also been tested on a bench scale. This technology may 
require pretreatment or addition of nutrients and other 
treatment agents to encourage the growth of key 
microorganisms. 

3.3 What Factors Affect Technology Selection for 
Drinking Water Treatment? 

For the treatment of drinking water, technology 
selection depends on several of factors, such as existing 
systems, the need to treat for other contaminants, and 
the size of the treatment system. Although the data 
collected for this report indicate that 
precipitation/coprecipitation is the technology most 
commonly used to remove arsenic from drinking water, 
in the future other technologies may become more 


3-3 































common as drinking water treatment facilities modify 
their operations to meet the revised arsenic MCL. 

Precipitation/coprecipitation is often used to remove 
contaminants other than arsenic from drinking water, 
such as hardness or suspended solids. However, the 
precipitation/coprecipitation processes applied to 
drinking water usually also remove arsenic, or can be 
easily modified to do so. Where precipitation/ 
coprecipitation processes are already in place, or are 
needed to remove other contaminants, these processes 
are commonly used to remove arsenic. Where 
precipitation/coprecipitation is not needed to treat 
drinking water for other contaminants, treaters may be 
more likely to choose another technology, such as 
adsorption, ion exchange, or reverse osmosis. 

In addition, the size of a drinking water treatment 
system may affect the choice of technology. 
Precipitation/coprecipitation processes tend to be more 
complex, requiring more unit operations and greater 
operational expertise and monitoring, while adsorption 
and ion exchange units are usually less complex and 
require less operator expertise and monitoring. 
Therefore, operators of smaller drinking water treatment 
systems are more likely to select adsorption or ion 
exchange to treat arsenic instead of precipitation/ 
coprecipitation. 

3.4 How Effective Are Arsenic Treatment 
Technologies? 

Applications are considered to have performance data 
when analytical data for arsenic are available both 
before and after treatment. For the technologies 
applicable to soil and waste. Table 1.2 (presented in the 
Executive Summary) includes performance data only 
for those projects with leachable arsenic concentration 
data for the treated soil and waste, and either leachable 
or total arsenic concentrations for the untreated soil and 
waste. Performance data were compared to the RCRA 
TCLP regulatory threshold of 5.0 mg/L (Ref. 3.1). For 
this table, projects that measured teachability with other 
procedures, such as the EPT and the WET, were also 
compared directly to this level. The tables in the 
technology-specific sections (Sections 4.0 to 16.0) 
identify the leaching procedures used to measure 
performance. The text box to the right describes the 
leaching procedures most frequently identified in the 
information sources used for this report. 

For the technologies applicable to water, the 
performance was compared to the former MCL of 0.050 
mg/L, and the revised MCL of 0.010 mg/L (Ref. 3.2). 
Information was available on relatively few projects 
that have treated arsenic to below 0.010 mg/L. 

However, this does not necessarily indicate that these 
treatment technologies cannot achieve 0.010 mg/L 


Leaching Procedure Descriptions 

Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure 
(TCLP): The TCLP is used in identifying RCRA 
hazardous wastes that exhibit the characteristic of 
toxicity. In this procedure, liquids are separated 
from the solid phase of the waste, and the solid 
phase is then reduced in particle size until it is 
capable of passing through a 9.5 mm sieve. The 
solids are then extracted for 18 hours with a solution 
of acetic acid equal to 20 times the weight of the 
solid phase. The pH of the extraction fluid is a 
function of the alkalinity of the waste. Following 
extraction, the liquid extract is separated from the 
solid phase by filtration. If compatible, the initial 
liquid phase of the waste is added to the liquid 
extract and analyzed, otherwise they are analyzed 
separately. The RCRA TCLP regulatory threshold 
for arsenic is 5.0 mg/L in the extraction fluid (Ref. 
3.22). 

Extraction Procedure Toxicity Test (EPT): This 
procedure is similar to the TCLP test, with the 
following differences: 

• The extraction period is 24 hours 

• The extraction fluid is a pH 5 solution of acetic 
acid. 

The EPT was replaced by the TCLP test in March, 
1990 for purposes of hazardous waste identification, 
and is therefore no longer widely used (Ref. 3.23) 

Waste Extraction Test (WET): The WET is used 
in identifying hazardous wastes in California. This 
procedure is similar to the TCLP, with the following 
differences 

• The solid phase is reduced in particle size until it 
is capable of passing through a 2 mm sieve., 

• The waste is extracted for 48 hours 

• The extraction fluid is a pH 5 solution of sodium 
citrate equal to 10 times the weight of the solid 
phase. The WET regulatory threshold for arsenic 
is 5.0 mg/L (Ref. 3.24). 


arsenic. In many cases, the treatment goal in the 
projects was greater than 0.010 mg/L, and in most cases 
was the previous arsenic MCL of 0.050 mg/L. In such 
cases, the treatment technology may be capable of 
meeting 0.010 mg/L arsenic with modifications to the 
treatment technology design or operating parameters. 

3.5 What Are Special Considerations for 
Retrofitting Existing Water Treatment 

Systems? 

On January 22, 2001, EPA published a revised MCL for 
arsenic in drinking water that would require public 




water suppliers to maintain arsenic concentrations at or 
below 0.010 mg/L by 2006 (Ref. 2.9). Some 4,000 
drinking water treatment systems may require 
additional treatment technologies, a retrofit of existing 
treatment technologies, or other measures to achieve 
this level (Ref. 2.10). In addition, this revised MCL 
may affect Superfund remediation sites and other sites 
that base cleanup goals on the arsenic drinking water 
MCL. A lower goal could affect the selection, design, 
and operation of treatment systems. 

Site-specific conditions will determine the type of 
changes needed to meet the revised MCL. Some 
arsenic treatment systems may be retrofitted, while 
other may require new arsenic treatment systems to be 
designed. In addition, treatment to lower arsenic 
concentrations could require the use of multiple 
technologies in sequence. For example, a site with an 
existing metals precipitation/coprecipitation system 
may need to add another technology such as ion 
exchange to achieve a lower treatment goal. 

In some cases, a lower treatment goal might be met by 
changing the operating parameters of existing systems. 
For example, changing the type or amount of treatment 
chemicals used, replacing spent treatment media more 
frequently, or changing treatment system flow rates can 
reduce arsenic concentrations in the treatment system 
effluent. Flowever, such changes may increase 
operating costs from use of additional treatment 
chemicals or media, use of more expensive treatment 
chemicals or media, and from disposal of increased 
volumes of treatment residuals. 

Examples of technology-specific modifications that can 
help reduce effluent concentrations of arsenic include: 

Precipitation/Coprecipitation 

• Use of additional treatment chemicals 

• Use of different treatment chemicals 

• Addition of another technology to the treatment 
train, such as membrane filtration 

Adsorption 

• Addition of an adsorption media bed 

• Use of a different adsorption media 

• More frequent replacement or regeneration of 
adsorption media 

• Decrease in the flow rate of water treated 

• Addition of another treatment technology to the 
treatment train, such as membrane filtration 

Ion Exchange 

• Addition of an ion exchange bed 

• Use of a different ion exchange resin 

• More frequent regeneration or replacement of ion 
exchange media 

• Decrease in the flow rate of water treated 


• Addition of another technology to the treatment 
train, such as membrane filtration 

Membrane Filtration 

• Increase in the volume of reject generated per 
volume of water treated 

• Use of membranes with a smaller molecular 
weight cutoff 

• Decrease in the flow rate of water treated 

• Addition of another treatment technology to the 
treatment train, such as ion exchange 

3.6 How Do I Screen Arsenic Treatment 
Technologies? 

Table 3.2 at the end of this section is a screening matrix 
for arsenic treatment technologies. It can assist 
decision makers in evaluating candidate treatment 
technologies by providing information on relative 
availability, cost, and other factors for each technology. 
The matrix is based on the Federal Remediation 
Technologies Roundtable Technology (FRTR) 
Treatment Technologies Screening Matrix (Ref. 3.3), 
but has been tailored to treatment technologies for 
arsenic in soil, waste, and water. Table 3.2 differs from 
the FRTR matrix by: 

• Limiting the scope of the table to the technologies 
discussed in this report. 

• Changing the information based on the narrow 
scope of this report. For example, the FRTR 
screening matrix lists the overall cost of 
adsorption as “worse” (triangle symbol) in 
comparison to other treatment technologies for 
water. However, when applied to arsenic 
treatment, the costs of the technologies discussed 
in this report may vary based on scale, water 
characteristics, and other factors. Therefore, 
adsorption costs are not necessarily higher than 
the costs of other technologies discussed in this 
report, and this technology’s overall cost is rated 
as “average” (circle symbol) in Table 3.2. 

• Adding information about characteristics that can 
affect technology performance or cost. 

Table 3.2 includes the following information: 

• Development Status - The scale at which the 
technology has been applied. “F” indicates that 
the technology has been applied to a site at full 
scale. All of the technologies have been applied 
at full scale. 

• Treatment Trains - “Y” indicates that the 
technology is typically used in combination with 
other technologies, such as pretreatment or 


3-5 






treatment of residuals (excluding off gas). “N” 
indicates that the technology is typically used 
independently. 

Residuals Produced - The residuals typically 
produced that may require additional 
management. “S” indicates production of a solid 
residual, “L”, a liquid residual, and “V” a vapor 
residual. All of the technologies generate a solid 
residual, with the exceptions of soil flushing and 
membrane filtration, which generate only liquid 
residuals. Vitrification and pyrometallurgical 
recovery produce a vapor residual. 

O&M or Capital Intensive -This indicates the 
main cost-intensive parts of the system. “O&M” 
indicates that the operation and maintenance costs 
tend to be high in comparison to other 
technologies. “Cap” indicates that capital costs 
tend to be high in comparison to other 
technologies. “N” indicates neither operation and 
maintenance nor capital costs are intensive. 

Availability - The relative number of vendors that 
can design, construct, or maintain the technology. 
A square indicates more than four vendors; a 
circle, two to three vendors; and a triangle, fewer 
than two vendors. All of the technologies have 
more than four vendors with the exception of 
pyrometallurgical recycling, bioremediation, 
electrokinetics, and phytoremediation, which have 
less than two. 

System Reliability/Maintainability - The expected 
reliability/maintainability of the technology. A 
square indicates high reliability and low 
maintenance; a circle, average reliability and 
maintenance; and a triangle, low reliability and 
high maintenance. Biological treatment, 
electrokinetics, and phytoremediation are rated 
low because of the limited number of applications 
for those technologies, and indications that some 
applications were not effective. 

Overall Cost - Design, construction, and O&M 
costs of the core process that defines each 
technology, plus the treatment of residuals. A 
square indicates lower overall cost; a circle, 
average overall cost; and a triangle, higher overall 
cost. Sclidification/stabilization is rated a low 
cost technology because it typically uses standard 
equipment and relatively low cost chemicals and 
additives. Phytoremediation is low cost because 
of the low capital expense to purchase and plant 
phytoremediating species and the low cost to 
maintain the plants. 


• Characteristics That May Require Pretreatment 
or Affect Performance or Cost - The types of 
contaminants or other substances that generally 
may interfere with arsenic treatment for each 
technology. A indicates that the presence of 
the characteristic may interfere with technology 
effectiveness or result in increased costs. 

Although these contaminants can usually be 
removed before arsenic treatment through 
pretreatment with another technology, the addition 
of a pretreatment technology may increase overall 
treatment costs and generate additional residuals 
requiring disposal. “Other characteristics” are 
technology-specific elements which affect 
technology performance, cost, or both. These 
characteristics are described in Sections 4.0 
through 16.0. 

The selection of a treatment technology for a particular 
site will depend on many site-specific factors; thus the 
matrix is not intended to be used as the sole basis for 
treatment decisions. 

More detailed information on selection and design of 
arsenic treatment systems for small drinking water 
systems is available in the document “ Arsenic 
Treatment Technology Design Manual for Small 
Systems “ (Ref. 3.25). 

3.7 What Does Arsenic Treatment Cost? 

A limited amount of cost data on arsenic treatment was 
identified for this report. Table 3.3 summarizes this 
information. In many cases, the cost information was 
incomplete. For example, some data were for operating 
and maintenance (O&M) costs only, and did not specify 
the associated capital costs. In other cases, a cost per 
unit of soil, waste, and water treated was provided, but 
total costs were not. For some technologies, no arsenic- 
specific cost data were identified. 

The cost data were taken from a variety of sources, 
including EPA, DoD, other government sources, and 
information from technology vendors. The quality of 
these data varied, with some sources providing detailed 
information about the items included in the costs, while 
other sources gave little detail about their basis. In 
most cases, the particular year for the costs were not 
provided. The costs in Table 3.3 are the costs reported 
in the identified references, and are not adjusted for 
inflation. Because of the variation in type of 
information and quality, this report does not provide a 
summary or interpretation of the costs in Table 3.3. 

In general. Table 3.3 only includes costs specifically for 
treatment of arsenic. Because arsenic treatment is very 
waste- and site-specific, general technology cost 
estimates are unlikely to accurately predict arsenic 


3-6 


treatment costs. However, general technology cost 
estimates were included for three technologies: 
solidification/stabilization, pyrometallurgical recovery, 
and phytoremediation. 

One of the solidification/stabilization costs listed in 
Table 3.3 is a general cost for treatment of metals, and 
is not arsenic-specific. This cost was included because 
solidification/stabilization processes for arsenic are 
similar to those for treatment of metals. The only cost 
for pyrometallurgical recovery listed in Table 3.3 is a 
general cost for the treatment of volatile metals and is 
not arsenic-specific. This cost was included because 
arsenic is expected to behave in a manner similar to 
other volatile metals when treated using 
pryometallurgical recovery processes. For 
phytoremediation, costs for applications to metals and 
radionuclides are included due to the lack of data on 
arsenic. 

The EPA document "Technologies and Costs for 
Removal of Arsenic From Drinking Water" (Ref. 3.4) 
contains more information on the cost to reduce the 
concentration of arsenic in drinking water from the 
former MCL of 0.050 mg/L to below the revised MCL 
of 0.010 mg/L. The document includes capital and 
O&M cost curves for a variety of processes, including: 

• Retrofitting of existing precipitation/ 
coprecipitation processes to improve arsenic 
removal (enhanced coagulation/filtration and 
enhanced lime softening) 

• Precipitation/coprecipitation followed by 
membrane filtration (coagulation-assisted 
microfiltration) 

• Ion exchange (anion exchange) with varying 
levels of sulfate in the influent 

• Two types of adsorption (activated alumina at 
varying influent pH and greensand filtration) 

• Oxidation pretreatment technologies (chlorination 
and potassium permanganate) 

• Treatment and disposal costs of treatment 
residuals (including mechanical and 
non-mechanical sludge dewatering) 

• Point-of-use systems using adsorption (activated 
alumina) and membrane filtration (reverse 
osmosis) 

The EPA cost curves are based on computer cost 
models for drinking water treatment systems. Costs for 
full-scale reverse osmosis, a common type of membrane 
filtration, were not included because it generally is 
more expensive and generates larger volumes of 
treatment residuals than other arsenic treatment 
technologies (Ref. 3.4). Although the cost information 
is only for the removal of arsenic from drinking water, 
many of the same treatment technologies can be used 


for the treatment of other waters and may have similar 
costs. 

Table 3.4 presents estimated capital and annual O&M 
costs for four treatment technologies based on cost 
curves presented in “Technologies and Costs for 
Removal of Arsenic From Drinking Water"'. 

1. Precipitation/coprecipitation followed by 
membrane filtration (coagulation-assisted 
microfiltration) 

2. Adsorption (greensand filtration) 

3. Adsorption (activated alumina with pH of 7 to 8 in 
the influent) 

4. Ion exchange (anion exchange with <20 mg/L 
sulfate in the influent) 

The table presents the estimated costs for three 
treatment system sizes: 0.01,0.1, and 1 million gallons 
per day (mgd). The costs presented in Table 3.4 are for 
specific technologies listed in the table, and do not 
include costs for oxidation pretreatment or management 
of treatment residuals. Detailed descriptions of the 
assumptions used to generate the arsenic treatment 
technology cost curves are available (Ref. 3.4). 

3.8 References 

3.1 Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 
261.24. 

http://lula.law.comell.edu/cfr/ 

3.2 U.S. EPA Office of Water. Fact Sheet: EPA To 
Implement 1 Oppb Standard for Arsenic in 
Drinking Water. EPA 815-F-01-010. October, 
2001. http:// 

www.epa.gov/safewater/ars/ars-oct-factsheet.html 

3.3 Federal Remediation Technologies Reference 
Guide and Screening Manual, Version 4.0. 

Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable. 
September 5, 2001. 

http://www.frtr.gov/matrix2/top_page.html. 

3.4 U.S. EPA. Office of Water. Technologies and 
Costs for Removal of Arsenic From Drinking 
Water. EPA-R-00-028. December 2000. 

http ://w w w. epa. gov/safe water/ars/ 
treatments_and_costs.pdf 

3.5 U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development. 
Engineering Bulletin, Technology Alternatives for 
the Remediation of Soils Contaminated with 
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Mercury, and 
Lead. Cincinnati, OH. March 1997. 
http://www.epa.gov/ncepi/Catalog/ 
EPA540S97500.html 

3.6 Redwine, J.C. Successful In Situ Remediation 
Case Histories: Soil Flushing And 
Solidification/Stabilization With Portland Cement 
And Chemical Additives. Southern Company 
Services, Inc. Presented at the Air and Waste 


3-7 


Management Association’s 93 rd Annual 
Conference and Exhibition, Salt Lake City, June 
2000 . 

3.7 Miller JP. In-Situ Solidification/Stabilization of 
Arsenic Contaminated Soils. Electric Power 
Research Institute. Report TR-106700. Palo 
Alto, CA. November 1996. 

3.8 Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable 
(FRTR). In Situ Vitrification at the Parsons 
Chemical/ETM Enterprises Superfund Site Grand 
Ledge, Michigan. April 17,2001 
http://www.frtr.gov/costperf.htm 

3.9 U.S. EPA. Treatment Technologies for Site 
Cleanup: Annual Status Report (Tenth Edition). 
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. 
EPA-542-R-01-004. February 2001. 
http://clu-in.org/asr. 

3.10 U.S. EPA. Contaminants and Remedial Options 
at Selected Metal-Contaminated Sites. Office of 
Research and Development. EPA-540-R-95-512. 
July 1995. 

3.11 U.S. EPA. Database for EPA REACH IT 
(REmediation And CHaracterization Innovative 
Technologies). March 2001. 
http://www.epareachit.org. 

3.12 U.S. EPA. Treatment Technology Performance 
and Cost Data for Remediation of Wood 
Preserving Sites. Office of Research and 
Development. EPA-625-R-97-009. October 
1997. 

http://www.epa.gov/ncepi/Catalog/ 

EPA625R97009.html 

3.13 E-mail attachment sent from Doug Sutton of 
Geotrans, Inc. to Linda Fiedler, U.S. EPA. April 
20 , 2001 . 

3.14 E-mail attachment sent from Anni Loughlin of 
U.S. EPA Region I to Linda Fiedler, U.S. EPA. 
August 21,2001. 

3.15 Miller JP, Hartsfield TH, Corey AC, Markey RM. 
In Situ Environmental Remediation of an 
Energized Substation. EPRI. Palo Alto, CA. 
Report No. 1005169. 2001. 

3.16 Twidwell, L.G., et al. Technologies and Potential 
Technologies for Removing Arsenic from Process 
and Mine Wastewater. Presented at 
"REWAS'99." San Sebastian, Spain. September 

1999. http://www.mtech.edu/metallurgy/arsenic/ 

REWASAS%20for%20proceedings99%20in 

%20word.pdf 

3.17 U.S. EPA. Arsenic Removal from Drinking 
Water by Ion Exchange and Activated Alumina 
Plants. EPA-600-R-00-088. Office of Research 
and Development. October 2000. 


3.18 DOE. Permeable Reactive Treatment (PeRT) 

Wall for Rads and Metals. Office of 
Environmental Management, Office of Science 
and Technology. DOE/EM-0557. September, 
2000. http://apps.apps.em.doe.gov/ost/pubs/ 
itsrs/itsr2155.pdf 

3.19 Applied Biosciences. June 28, 2001. 
http://www.bioprocess.com 

3.20 Center for Bioremediation at Weber State 
University. Arsenic Treatment Technologies. 
August 27, 200. http://www.weber.edu/ 
Bioremediation/arsenic.htm. . 

3.21 Electric Power Research Institute. Electrokinetic 
Removal of Arsenic from Contaminated Soil: 
Experimental Evaluation. July 2000. 
http://www.epri.com/ 
OrderableitemDesc.asp?product_id. 

3.22 U.S. EPA. SW-846 On-Line. Test Methods for 
Evaluating Solid Wastes. Physical/Chemical 
Methods. Method 1311 Toxicity Characteristic 
Leaching Procedure. July 1992. 
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/test/pdfs/ 
1311 .pdf. 

3.23 U.S. EPA. SW-846 On-Line. Test Methods for 
Evaluating Solid Wastes. Physical/Chemical 
Methods. Method 131OA Extraction Procedure 
(EP) Toxicity Test Method and Structural 
Integrity Test. July 1992. 

http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/test/pdfs/ 

1310a.pdf. 

3.24 California Code of Regulations. Title 22 Section 
66261.126, Appendix II. Waste Extraction Test 
(WET) Procedures. August, 2002. 
http://ccr.oal.ca.gov/ 

3.25 U.S. EPA. Arsenic Treatment Technology Design 
Manual for Small Systems (100% Draft for Peer 
Review). June 2002. http://www.epa.gov/ 
safewater/smallsys/ 

arsenicdesignmanualpeerreviewdraft.pdf 

3.26 Cunningham, S. D. The Phytoremediation of Soils 
Contaminated with Organic Pollutants: Problems 
and Promise. International Phytoremediation 
Conference. May 8-10, Arlington, VA. 1996. 

3.27 Salt, D. E., M. et al. Phytoremedia-tion: A Novel 
Strategy for the Removal of Toxic Metals from 
the Environment Using Plants. Biotechnol. 
13:468-474. 1995. 

3.28 Dushenkov, S., D. et al.. Removal of Uranium 
from Water Using Terrestrial Plants. Environ, Sci. 
Technol. 31 (12):3468-3474. 1997. 

3.29 Cunningham, S. D., and W. R. Berti, and J. W. 
Huang. Phytoremediation of Contaminated Soils. 
Trends Biotechnol. 13:393-397. 1995. 


3-8 


Table 3.1. 

Applicability of Arsenic Treatment Technologies 


Water 

Wastewater* 1 






4- 







4 

Drinking Water 






4 

4- 

4- 

♦ 





Groundwater 
and Surface 
Water' 






4 

4- 

4- 

4- 

4 

4 

4 

4 


Waste 1 * 

4 

♦ 


♦ 







4 



« 

’© 

C/5 

4 

4 

♦ 

4 

♦ 






4 

4 


_© 

© 

s 

X 

o 

o» 

H 

Solidification/Stabilization 

Vitrification 

Soil Washing/Acid Extraction 

Pyrometallurgical Treatment 

In Situ Soil Flushing 

Precipitation/Coprecipitation 

Membrane Filtration 

Adsorption 

Ion Exchange 

Permeable Reactive Barriers 

Electrokinetics 

Phytoremediation 

Biological Treatment 


03 

O 

C/5 

a 

3 

x 

U 
•—' 
o 
3 

-o 

c 

o 

o 

3 

<D 

CL) 

X) 

CO 

3 

X 

-4—* 

c 

d> 

E 

3 

U 


C/D 

a> 
■*—* 
3 
O 

■5 

II 

♦ 


.2 

-a 

<u 

E 

o3 k/ 

3 

to 

E 3 
c ^2 
o .£ 


<l> -a 
<u B 

co 3 

TO |_, 

x <u 

Dh 3 
a) 

!£ be 

"o B 

CO c« 

i- 3 

J* * 

O ^ 


-*-* 

3 

X 

o 

3 

X 

C 

3 

l_ 

0) 

03 

£ 

<L> 

•4-4 

CO 

3 


• 2 N 

-g ^ 

■3 C 
- O 

X c 

$ co 
co o 

co X 

•s -E 
-E g 

o •— 

C 4) 
' — 1 •*—> 
C/5 

*z? 03 

C/3 ^ 


<L> 3 

SP -c 

3 33 
C co 
•3 3 

s a 

”3 .E 
C 3 

£ -3 

t-4 

fli 3 
-rt N 
^ C3 
.5 X 

o -a 
.£ c 

_ =3 

J 3 

3 O 

1-4 X 

<u u. 
■4-i 3 

3 n 

s « 

I § 

c2 3 

fa co 
3 4 ) 
co ^ 

X 3 
C 


3 

t-i 

4) 

3 

£ 

X 

3 

3 

O 


o 


4) 

3 

£ 
<U 
•*—» 
C/5 
03 


a £ 


03 X O T3 


Gv 

i 

r^5 























Table 3.2 

Arsenic Treatment Technologies Screening Matrix 


0 / 

C /5 

O 

U 

La 

La 

o 


3 

41 

cr 

o 

4 * 

c 

Q£ 

re 

re 

s 

E 

La 

£ 

La 

- 4 -* 

0 / 

re 

a- 

X 


H 

41 

& 

£ 

o 

L- 


< 

/- 

La 

u 

o 

o> 


4 — 1 

o 

3 

re 

4 / 

L, 

re 

X 

£ 

■*aa 

U 

QJ 

La 


■*— 

41 

L. 

Cl 


</) 

o 


u 

<u 

u 

!3 

L. 

« 


s_ 

a» 

-= 


Hd 


uuoj n?oiuiaq 3 3IU3SJV 


U0IJBJJU3JU03 3IU3SJY qSiq 


}S 03 UEJaAQ 


A j! 11 q k ii! k j u! k i v T / H! t| *• M ^>1 iu^JS^S 




OAisuajui !BiidB3 jo JV’yo 


paDnpojj s|Bnpjsoy 


()Udui)BdJ) sbS-jjo sapnpxa) 
UIBJX JU3U1JB3JX 


sri)t;jS' ju3uido|3A3Q 


c /2 

o 

■O 

o 

U 

OD 

.3 

S3 

a: 


4> 

I 

— 

0) 

QQ 


0) 

00 

«S 

u. 

0) 

> 

< 


o 

Z 


_o 

CL 


s 

o 

■ 4 —* 

03 

— 

<D 

& 

o 


03 O 

> i-T 

t 4> 
^ X 

> +2 
• r» 0 ^ 

3 z 

3 . 

.3*2 

I 


re JJ 


1 _l X 
CL CL b 
..■o R 2 

= x U g 

3 O , ■£ 

L- GO _ .£ 

I CL 3 i 

i i a ™ 

>■ &, (/i u 


C/5 

<D 

>- 


-o 

3 

3 

-+-* 

C/5 

o 

o 

-+-> 

o 

$-♦— 

M—« 

03 


c 

<D 

E 

03 

4> 

«_ 

"5 

t- 

CL 

4> 

■_ 

'3 . 

3“ 4> 

4) 4> 

3 

>> fS 

,o 


L. 

0> 

CL 


00 

_© 

o 

c 

X 

u 

<u 

H 


c/2 

o 

_ re 

« ?? £ Jr 

c3 O 

— -o 

3 C 
a X 
X) 

S r '4—I 

D. ° 

4> 

3 


c ° 

5 ^ 

o. H ts 

x c 
o <u _ 

-a vo <l> 

« E _ 


s 

1) 

00 


1/ . tZ x*' 

C2 Q. P- h 


== >7 re 

4 ) 


3 

4» 

E 

03 
D 
— 
-4—* 

D 

0« 


s 


s 


CL 

re 

U 


co 


PL 


c 

_o 

re 

_ N 

15 

re 

■ 4 —» 

CO 

c 

o 

— 

re 

a 

'X 


o 

co 


CJ 

’5 

re 

oo 


m 


4> 


_re 

o 

> 

4- 

O 


4-i "O 
O ~0 
re c 
3 3 

a> o „ 

00 CL 4> 
O £ * 
o 


4) 

CJ 

3 

4> 

C /2 

4) 


V) 


C /2 

4> 

N J2 
c /5 00 

4> 


ca¬ 


re 


o 

"re -X 

J* S C O 


C /5 

.2 
’ c 
&> 

c3 

E 

oo 

3 


3 
4) 
■*—* 
3 
O 
4) 

4) 


3 

« 

3 

O 

o 


o 

C /2 

■o 

4) 

— 

re 

3 


4» 


C /2 

.a 4/ 

4-* -4—» 

C /5 C /5 

C3 


o o ■ z: ^ ■*-» 


4> ^ 


3 •— c f- 03 4) -a 

S2 re 3 iS ^ 2 B 

o m?; n 3 2 s 


OL.-.rereQ^^.ocp-* 

o Cl E 3 J 3 O x o reCJ 


X 4) 


re 

U ^ O 


> 

co 


3 

O 

•4—* 

03 

O 


> 































Table 3.2 

Arsenic Treatment Technologies Screening Matrix (continued) 


a/ 

C/5 

o 

U 

G 

© 

3 

© 


u 

a* 

c 

X 

3 

>> 

3 

s 

E 

u 

c2 

4— 

© 


Cl 

3= 


H 

(j 

C*3 

& 


V- 


< 



U 

© 

0/ 

+* 


U 

c 

3 

© 

L. 

3 

3= 

E 

C« 

U 

a> 


"S 

L. 

Cu 


C/5 

O 


U 

0 ) 

-M 

3 

s- 

3 


L. 

a* 


Hd 


UUOj |B31U13IJ3 3IU9SJV 


U0IJBJJU33U03 3IU3SJV qSjn 




<u 

c 

<u 

bJO 

o 

E 

O 

f 5 
^ 3 


c 

<D 


C/5 


C/0 


2 § 

c a/ 

— L. 

I 5 

c o 

s s 


<u 

N 

to 

£ u 

5 o 
2 c 

<u 3 

CL cl 

£ ~ 
a/ o 
H c/o 


c 

_o 

M 

3 

30 


C/5 

-a 


s 


& 

■M "-M 

C O 

1 ) 3 

C "g 

8 § ^ 
u o 


<u 

•E3 « o o M 

1/5 1) _ CU 4/ 

<u 


3 


O 

C 

3 

cu 


C/5 C 

'I j= 


3 o 

' c 

<U 

C/5 

<U 


3 

Oh 

CU .1 


-a 

« C/5 

3 CJ 
<u 'G 
H </> 


bo 

c 


Cm 

o 


« U c o « 

£ o o t 

2 s 3 5 * 

E £ 3 3 <3! 

3 3 m m o 

£ _c -r o 

3 o a. « 

" E 3 

<L> 1) 


-2 3 CJ 

E -G — 3 

3 o o 


c 

3 

.E 

c c C 
o E 

M M > 

3 C 


Sn’oEa/W-GOO 

Z 8 c/o a. H c* °U 2 


S 


s 


}S 03 HBJ3AQ 


A4i|iqKU|B}uiBix/AJU!qB!|3>j uiajs^s 


yQl|iqB|IBAV 


AAisusjui ]BqdB3 jo i\[3S»o 


u ^ o 


3 2 
£■<* 
u o 


o 


paonpojj s|Bnpisay 


c/o' 


J 

c/o' > 


mJ 


(lUdiu^BdJ) sbS-jjo sopnpxa) 
UIBJX JU3UIJB3JX 


>- 


>- 


SnjBJ$ JU3UldO|3A3Q 


5/5 

a» 

T3 

o 

u 

WD 

c 

4-* 

& 

X 


<u 

ti 

<U 

CQ 


a/ 

bD 

3 

S- 

V 

> 

< 


o o 

& Z £ 
O Z 


=3 

c 

o 

*M 

3 

1— 

a> 

CL 

o 


3 O 
> • - 
i <u 

> ~ 

. ^ a/ 

12 Z 

3 i 

^Z 


~0 

C 

3 

4 —» 

C/D 

O 

o 

a 

£ 

C 

3 


c 

<U 


3 

<U 


CU 

J—i 

CL 


<U 


-LT • 3 


C/5 

CU — 

>* £ 


Ml 

"O 

"o 

c/o 


3 

M 

’a. 

3 

U 


<u 

o 

c 

3 

C 

(U 

M 

_G 

3 


cr <u 
cu o 
*- c 

3 

E 


>5 

3 

s 


■ ■ '■'j —H 

^ X C/0 U A 


v <U 
> CL 


c 
_o 
-*—* 
3 
3 
H 

M 

X 

W 

rs 

o 

< 

'5o 

c 


C/5 

3 


O 

C/0 


bJ) 

~ 

>5 

o 

a/ 

Id 

o 

'5b 

Lh 

_3 

*3 

M 

a/ 


Cl 


bfl 

_c 

'-E 

C/5 

3 


O 

C/0 






















Table 3.2 

Arsenic Treatment Technologies Screening Matrix (continued) 


o 

u 

<u u 
h o 

3 O 

cr w 

cu 3 

r< 3 

“ I 
« © 

-t—* GJ 

« Cu 

H w 

oz 

^ 

o *** 

'■S C 
.2 a. 
o 

SI *- 

u c 

3 Oi 

£ E 
r -= c5 
U 

+■» 

0 / 

b 

Cu 


C/5 

o 


u. 

G> 

<-> 

C3 

Ua 

« 


a- 

© 


Hd 


uijoj le^iuidio aiuasjy 


uo(jt:jjuaouo 3 Diuasjy q§!H 


w 

-C 

o 

0-c 


Cd 

CJ 


E 

o -a Jo 

© e « 

c O o 

U D. u w 

Sg E a'-o 

i- O 2^ "O 
t— co 


c 

O 


<u 

oi) _ — 

S § s 
-§ & EL 

C/5 

<3 E t3 
.2 | u 
P -5 ox) 

^ cd -fa 

© 


<U 


Cu cj 


j= s .2 

U H c /3 


s 


s 


CO 

-a 


T3 

<u 

- E : 

O £ S 

<* 3 to 

CJ c/5 


T3 
O C 
a3 


03 r 
C/D S—. ' 


-g .2 |-o 

a> _ -o u. c 

"E ° » ° 3 

c p -y - o "O © 

© c SZ CO X • — CU 

a. _c 00-3 & ° - 

C/5 

CO X 


a> 

c 

03 

u- 

X 

© £ 
fa © 

£ 


c 

o 


O .fa __ 


.c .£P:S P & 2 ■£ 
.op © — o’© «3 ~ 'p 

— ^ co o © h - H PC 


E 

cd 

© 

£: © 
M to 
© cd 

£ 

cd _, 

£ £2 

a 


w 3 .2 <U 3 


. © 
© u, 


s 


s 


s 


JS03 ||BJ3AO 


AqqqBUjBjuiBiv/AjqjqBqAy uiajs^s 


AJI|iqB|IBAV 


d\isud)u| ]BqdB3 jo 


u =3 o 


rt . 

U <*S o 


paonpojj s|BnpjS3» 


00 




()U31U)B3J) sb§-jjo sopnpxa) 
UIBJX JU3UIJB3JX 


>- 


>- 


SI1)B)S )U3UidO|3A3Q 


Uh 


c 
_o 
•*—* 
03 
u. 

a> 

Ou 

o 


a§ 

> • - 
u- 

I <u 

> .-3 

. „ <u 

^ 2 

3 


"O 

c 

cd 

CO 

O 

o 

u 

cd 


C 

<D 


cd 


<u 


a> 

■© 

o 

CJ 

DU 


3 

at 



CD 


d 

_o 

_a“ 

z 


<u 

H 


i-T 

01) 

cd 

i-T 

C/5 

2 

1 

£ 

—! 

i 

13 

D 

'5 

cr 

0) 

ts 

d) 

a> 

> 

!—• 
o 

2 

I 

cu 


'a. 

o 

3 

<D 

Ua 

CJ 

c 

CQ 

< 


C/5 


3 

cd 

U 

03 

c 

(U 

03 

cd 

i 

o 

■ V 

>■ 

1 

>< 

~3 

U- 

Pu 

O 

00 

1 

C/5 

1 

Cu 

u 

c3 

S 

i 

S 

<2 

<D 

D. 


c 

_o 

t 

cd 


o 

a> 

u. 

a. 

o 

U 

'E 

o 

cd 


CJ 

<u 


c 

_o 

td 


<u 

c 

cd 

i_ 

J2i 

E 

4J 



















Table 3.2 

Arsenic Treatment Technologies Screening Matrix (continued) 


5/5 

O 

U 

a* s_ 

.b o 

3 a/ 
Q" U 
4. C 

“ 1 
I I 

O 

3 0. 
J= 

H «-• 

o 

Z 4- 

*J= < 

•— — 

L. o 

a/ 

cj c 

C3 0/ 

S- ' w 
CJ « 

-W 

a> 

u 

CU 


5/5 


u 

C3 

u 

C3 


1m 

&» 


Hd 


U1J0 j |BDIUJ3q3 3IU3SJV 


uoijBJjuaauo;) Diuasjy q§!H 


<U 

3 


C 

O C 

o .2 
2 ‘-S ^ 
.£ 2 u 

^ E c £ 
= | 8 c 
o 


& 

_2 X w _ 

Pu Cl. Pu O o C/5 


s 


s 


s 


5/5 •*-* 

o c 

c « 

ol 03 
c/5 txO > 

c >- T* 

o o ■<-> 

U_, U_, 

6fl O O 

C (U 4> 

•£3 O a 

„ <U C 3 

<U Cl. <U <U 

C/5 C C/3 C/3 

az C 


o 

<u 

o 

c 


<u <o c o 


c 

_o 

2 2 
S c 

c/5 <U 

o g>« 

aj 

-a 

<u 3 


3 


a. o a. cu .2 cu CQ c/5 


S 


s 


N 


u* 

o 

o 

i_ 

T3 

<U 


C/5 

L. 

,<U 


C/5 

cu 

£ 

JO 

n. 


a- 

3 P 

a. £ 
cu c 

n § 

UJ o 


,aj 

’£ u> 

CT — 

“ g I 

-3 !_ "O 

00-0 c 

p: >> o 


00 

c 

. ‘ob 
>' >. 00 
- -c 3 JC 
o —< +-» 

o a. a, 


00 <u 


<U 

•o 


3 


fc m 

_ _ 3 O' 

u </) Q3 a. 


s 


JS 03 IJBJ3.VO 


X)l|!qBUIB)U!BJ\[/X)IIiqBI|9>{ lllOJSA^ 


Xjl|iqB|IBAV 


AAj$U3)U| |BJ|dB3 JO JM’S'O 


3 =3 

u o 


3 0 =3 

U =3 o 


a. 

3 

u 


r<5 


I 

ro 


pAjnpojj s|Bnp;s3>j 


-J 

C/5 


C/5 


C/5 


()U3iu)B3J) sb8-jjo sapnpxa) 
UIBJX 5U3UIJB3JX 


Sn)B)S JU3UI(l0|3A3(] 


pu 


PU 


Pu 


c 

o 

03 

1h 

a- 

o 


2 

30 


> 

I 

> 


«« 

0 / 

’O 

o 

u 

DO 

_c 

3 

20 


4> 

w 

4—* 

<u 

CQ 


0 

00 

3 

l~ 

u 

> 

< 


CU 

C/5 

o 


o 

z 


< 


C/5 

d> 

>- 


CU 

I 

CU 

.-a 


4» 

sz 

'5 
72. Z 

3 I 

•-z 

-J 71 


3 

Pu 


>“ PU C/5 


1 3 

►J M 
Cl. 
3 

u 

I 

cx 

03 

u 


-o 

c 

3 

C/5 

o 
o 
-*—* 
o 

to 

3 


3 

<u 

E 

3 

(U 

— 

4—> 

d> 


iu 

L- 

- ’3 

<U ( 3 - <u 

■' <u o 

c 

3 


o 

C/5 


o 

c 

3 

c 

<u 

5 


C3 


c2 


2S 8. 



<u 


00 

c 

c 

0 

03 

-C 

•*—< 

& 

0 

X 

0 

PU 

C/5 

-a 

c 

< 

0 


(U 

'E 

3 

CQ 

<u 

> 

w 

o 

3 

CU 

QC 

JJ 

X5 

3 

CU 


<u 

0 - 



















Table 3.2 

Arsenic Treatment Technologies Screening Matrix (continued) 


Characteristics That May Require 
Pretreatment or Affect Performance or Cost 

Other Characteristics 

• Iron concentration 

• Contaminant 

concentration 

• Available nutrients 

• Temperature 

• Pretreatment 

requirements 

• Salinity & cation 

exchange capacity 

• Soil moisture 

• Polarity & magnitude 

of ionic charge 

• Soil type 

• Contaminant 

extraction system 

• Contaminant depth 

• Climatic or seasonal 

conditions 

Hd 

S 

S 

S 

uijo j iBoiuiaqj oiuasjy 

S 

s 

s 

U0IJBJJU33U03 31U3SJV qSjH 

s 

s 

s 

JS 03 HBJ3AO 

0 

< 


■ 


XijIiqBuiBjuiBiy/XqiiqBipy uiajsas 

< 


< 


<1 


XjqiqBiiBAV 

< 


« 


<1 


3AjSU0JU| |BJjdB3 JO IV’S’O 

Cap 

& 

O&M 

O&M 

z 

poanpoaj s|Bnp;sd>| 

S, L 

S, L 

L, S 

(juauijBOJj sbS-jjo sopnpxa) 
UIBJX JU0UUB3JX 

>- 

>■ 

Z 

SI1)B)$ JUdllldo|dAd(] 

Uh 

u_ 

u. 

Rating Codes 

B - Better; 

O - Average; 

- Worse; 

Y - Yes; N - No. 

F- Full; P- Pilot. 

S - Solid; L - Liquid; V - Vapor. 

Cap - Capital; N - Neither; O&M - Operation & 
Maintenance. 

y - May require pretreatment or affect cost and 
performance. 

Biological Treatment 

Electrokinetics 

Phytoremediation 


rn 

rb 


QJ 


o 

o 

CM 

<u 

XL 

E 

<u 
•*—* 

O. 

<U 

cn 


> 

o 

Cl 


'C 

ed 


CO 

c 

'E 

(U 

<u 

i-— 

o 

C/3 

>% 

CO 

_o 

o 

c 

-C 

a 

V 

t- 

jd 

<73 

■a 

c 

3 

O 

CC 

C/7 

'5b 

o 

o 

c 

X 

o 

a> 

H 

c 

_o 

2 

■o 

<u 

E 

<u 

QZ 

"cd 

<_ 

<u 

T3 

<U 

U- 

<u 


p 

o 


-a 

aj 

+-» 

a. 

cd 

~a 

< 

ai 

o 

i— 

3 

O 

oo 


3 


. Relative costs for precipitation/coprecipitation, adsorption, and ion exchange are sensitive to treatment system capacity, untreated water characteristics, and 
other factors. 

























Table 3.3 

Available Arsenic Treatment Cost Data 



LTi 

I 

<*■> 


































































Table 3.3 

Available Arsenic Treatment Cost Data (Continued) 



Data nor provided gpm - gallons per minute 







































































Table 3.4 

Summary of Cost a Data for Treatment of Arsenic in Drinking Water 



-r 

ro 


3 

CC 


E 

£ 

X 

-a 

3 

> 

X 

3 

Q 


3 

P 

l_ 

3 

O 

cn 



<4-1 


O 


c 

. 

o 

C/D 


*4—* 

cd 

CD 

Z5 

4) 


X 

5 

•3 

<L> 

O 

•4—» 

s 

c 

<D 

E 

J- 

<2 

03 

4) 

G 

3 

c 

CD 

-4—* 

C/2 

<4-1 

3 

O 

‘do 

4—* 

c 

_o 

3 

O 

g 

c 

4) 

X 

DO 

03 

CJ 

3 

4—* 

C 

o3 

E 

3 

C/2 

3 

i- 

X 

4—< 

o 

L. 

— 

o 

c 

X 

4) 

E 

C/2 

3 

4—* 

> 

03 

— 

4) 

3 

•— 

3 

3 

C/2 

t- 

4—* 

n. 

C/2 

3 

o 

CJ 

T3 

3 

3 


X 

3 

4—* 

3 

3 

* ” 

C/2 

4—> 

3 

o 

CD 

c 

3 

o 

-a 

3 

X 

C/2 

-3 

4-> 

3 

C/2 

4—* 

O 

c 

U 

3 

C/2 


3 

C/2 

Uh 

u. 

a. 

JD 

,_ , 


o 

O 

c 

X 

3 

OO 

i- 

cD 

ON 

ON 

DO 


.3 

1— 

"E 

4) 

3 

X 

X 

E 

o 

4) 

C/2 

4-. 

a. 

3 

3 

E 

C/3 


S 

"3 

3 

4) 

3 

— 

03 

3 

CD 

*o 

X 

c 

3 

CD 

3 

C/2 

-3 

3 

C 

— 

3 

CD 

DO 

C 

X 

_o 

4—* 

s 

03 

X 

03 

4-* 

3 

X 

X 

E 

Is 

DO 

_o 

• 

X 

C/D 

JO 

4) 

4) 

I-, 

3 

DO 

X 

3 

w 

O 

o 

3 

4-» 

X 

-o 

3 

4> 

3 

■3 

c 

3 

3 

3 

X 

O 

3 

•— 

3 

3 

t- 

G 

o 

CD 

X 

C/2 

C/2 

4-» 

4-4 

C/2 

C/2 

O 

o 

U 

u 

CD 



3 

■*-» 

C/2 

4*4 

C/2 

3 

1) 


03 

3 

s_ 

4-4 

z 

3 

c 


3 

•— 

03 

X 

3 


3 

X 

03 

4 -» 

C/2 

X 


”3 

3 

' 

3 

3 

C/2 

3 

u. 

з. 

C/2 

4—4 

C/2 

o 

3 

i_ 

3 

X 

4-4 

o 

o 

4—4 

JU 

X 

03 

и. 
o3 
CX 


o 

o 

4—* 

o 

c 

3 

— 

03 

-o 

c 

03 


rn 


3 

0£ 


c 

o 

C/2 

E 

3 

4-4 

C/2 

C/2 

4 -» 

3 

a> 


03 

u 


3 

Id 

£ 

DO 

c 

"M 

c 

■c 

"3 

DO 

3 

X 

c /2 

'* 

3 


c 

03 

X 

+-* 

C/2 

C/2 

JD 

II 

V 



3 

3 

c 

03 

3 

3 

- 4 — 

s 

cd 

E 


"3 

c 

03 

DO 

_S 

C3 


J- 


Q- 

O 


s 

=3 

o 


>4 

03 

-o 


3 

a. 


C/2 

c 

_o 

DO 

c 

o 


II 

"3 

DO 

E 


r- 

i 



































II 

ARSENIC TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY SUMMARIES 






IIA 

ARSENIC TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES 
APPLICABLE TO SOIL AND WASTE 













4.0 SOLIDIFICATION AND 

STABILIZATION TREATMENT FOR 
ARSENIC 


Summary 

Solidification and stabilization (S/S) is an 
established treatment technology often used to 
reduce the mobility of arsenic in soil and waste. The 
most frequently used binders for S/S of arsenic are 
pozzolanic materials such as cement and lime. S/S 
can generally produce a stabilized product that 
meets the regulatory threshold of 5 mg/L leachable 
arsenic as measured by the TCLP. However, 
leachability tests may not always be accurate 
indicators of arsenic leachability for some wastes 
under certain disposal conditions. 


Model of a Solidification/Stabilization System 


Dry Water 

Reagents (If Required) 


1- 




Liquid 

Reagents 

1 

r 

Waste 

Material 



Pug Mill ; 
Mixer 


1 

Stabilized Waste 



Technology Description and Principles 

The stabilization process involves mixing a soil or 
waste with binders such as Portland cement, lime, fly 
ash, cement kiln dust, or polymers to create a slurry, 
paste, or other semi-liquid state, which is allowed time 
to cure into a solid form. When free liquids are present 
the S/S process may involve a pretreatment step 
(solidification) in which the waste is encapsulated or 
absorbed, forming a solid material. Pozzolanic binders 
such as cement and fly ash are used most frequently for 
the S/S of arsenic. No site-specific information is 
currently available on the use of organic binders to 
immobilize arsenic. 


Technology Description: S/S reduces the mobility 
of hazardous substances and contaminants in the 
environment through both physical and chemical 
means. It physically binds or encloses contaminants 
within a stabilized mass and chemically reduces the 
hazard potential of a waste by converting the 
contaminants into less soluble, mobile, or toxic 
forms. 

Media Treated: 

• Soil • Other solids 

• Sludge • Industrial waste 

Binders and Reagents used in S/S of Arsenic: 

• Cement • pH adjustment agents 

• Fly Ash • Sulfur 

• Lime 

• Phosphate 


The process also may include the addition of pH 
adjustment agents, phosphates, or sulfur reagents to 
reduce the setting or curing time, increase the 
compressive strength, or reduce the leachability of 
contaminants (Ref. 4.8). Information gathered for this 
report included 45 Superfund remedial action projects 
treating soil or waste containing arsenic using S/S. 
Figure 4.1 shows the frequency of use of binders and 
reagents in 21 of those S/S treatments. The figure 
includes some projects where no performance data were 
available but information was available on the types of 
binders and reagents used. Some projects used more 
than one binder or reagent. Data were not available for 
all 46 projects. 


Figure 4.1 

Binders and Reagents Used for 
Solidification/Stabilization of Arsenic for 21 
Identified Superfund Remedial Action Projects 


15 


10 


5 


0 


13 



Cement 


3 3 



Phosphate pH 

Adjustment 

Agents 


2 2 



Lime Sulfur 


4-1 


















































S/S often involves the use of additives or pretreatment 
to convert arsenic and arsenic compounds into more 
stable and less soluble forms, including pH adjustment 
agents, ferric sulfate, persulfates, and other proprietary 
reagents (Ref. 4.3, 4.8). Prior to S/S, the soil or waste 
may be pretreated with chemical oxidation to render the 
arsenic less soluble by converting it to its As(V) state 
(Ref. 4.3). Pretreatment with incineration to convert 
arsenic into ferric arsenate has also been studied, but 
limited data are available on this process (Ref. 4.3). 

This technology has also been used to immobilize 
arsenic in soil in situ by injecting solutions of chemical 
precipitants, pH adjustment agents, and chemical 
oxidants. In this report, such applications are referred 
to as in situ S/S. In one full-scale treatment, a solution 
of ferrous iron, limestone, and potassium permanganate 
was injected (Ref. 4.8). In another full-scale treatment, 
a solution of unspecified pH adjustment agents and 
phosphates was injected (Ref. 4.10). 

Media and Contaminants Treated 


S/S is used frequently to immobilize metals and 
inorganics in soil and waste. It has been used to 
immobilize arsenic in environmental media such as soil 
and industrial wastes such as sludges and mine tailings. 

Type, Number, and Scale of Identified Projects 
Treating Soil and Wastes Containing Arsenic 

S/S of soil and waste containing arsenic is 
commercially available at full scale. Data sources used 
for this report included information about 58 full-scale 
and 19 pilot-scale applications of S/S to treat arsenic. 
This included 45 projects at 41 Superfund sites (Ref. 
4.8). Figure 4.2 shows the number of applications at 
both full and pilot scale. 


Figure 4.2 

Scale of Identified Solidification/Stabilization 
Projects for Arsenic Treatment 



Factors Affecting S/S Performance 

• Valence state - The specific arsenic compound 
or valence state of arsenic may affect the 
leachability of the treated material because 
these factors affect the solubility of arsenic. 

• pH and redox potential - The pH and redox 
potential of the waste and waste disposal 
environment may affect the leachability of the 
treated material because these factors affect the 
solubility of arsenic and may cause arsenic to 
react to form more soluble compounds or reach 
a more soluble valence state. 

• Presence of organics - The presence of volatile 
or semivolatile organic compounds, oil and 
grease, phenols, or other organic contaminants 
may reduce the unconfined compressive 
strength or durability of the S/S product, or 
weaken the bonds between the waste particles 
and the binder. 

• Waste characteristics - The presence of 
halides, cyanide, sulfate, calcium, or soluble 
salts of manganese, tin, zinc, copper, or lead 
may reduce the unconfined compressive 
strength or durability of the S/S product, or 
weaken the bonds between the waste particles 
and the binder. 

• Fine particulate - The presence of fine 
particulate matter coats the waste particles and 
weakens the bond between the waste and the 
binder. 

• Mixing - Thorough mixing is necessary to 
ensure waste particles are coated with the 
binder. 


Summary of Performance Data 

Table 4.1 provides performance data for 10 pilot-scale 
treatability studies and 34 full-scale remediation 
projects. Due to the large number of projects. Table 4.1 
lists only those for which leachable arsenic 
concentrations are available for the treated soil or 
waste, with the exception of projects involving only in 
situ stabilization. In situ projects without information 
on the leachability of arsenic in the stabilized mass are 
included in the table because this type of application is 
more innovative and information is available for only a 
few applications. 

The performance of S/S treatment is usually measured 
by leach testing a sample of the stabilized mass. For 
most land-disposed arsenic-bearing hazardous wastes 
that fall under RCRA (including both listed and 


4-2 















characteristic wastes), the treatment standard is less 
than 5.0 mg/L arsenic in the extract generated by the 
toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP). The 
standard for spent potliners from primary aluminum 
smelting (K088) is 26.1 mg/kg total arsenic (Ref. 4.10). 
For listed hazardous wastes, the waste must be disposed 
in a Subtitle C land disposal unit after treatment to meet 
the standard for arsenic and any other applicable 
standards, unless it is specifically delisted. For 
hazardous wastes exhibiting the characteristic for 
arsenic, the waste may be disposed in a Subtitle D 
landfill after being treated to remove the characteristic 
and to meet all other applicable standards. 

Of the 23 soil projects identified for this report, 22 
achieved a teachable arsenic concentration of less than 
5.0 mg/L in the stabilized material. Of the 19 industrial 
waste projects, 17 achieved a leachable arsenic 
concentration of less than 5.0 mg/L in the stabilized 
material. Leachability data are not available for the 
projects that involve only in situ stabilization. 

Four projects (Projects 25, 26, 27, and 41, Table 4.1) 
included pretreatment to oxidize As(III) to As(V). In 
these projects, the leachability of arsenic in industrial 
wastes was reduced to less than 0.50 mg/L. The 
compound treated in Projects 24, 25, and 26 was 
identified as arsenous trisulfide. All three treatment 
processes involved pretreating a waste containing 5,000 
to 40,000 mg/kg arsenous trisulfide with chemical 
oxidation (Ref. 4.1). The specific arsenic compound in 
another S/S treatment (Project 41) was identified as 
As 2 0 3 . This treatment process included pretreatment by 
chemical oxidation to form ferric arsenate sludge 
followed by S/S with lime (Ref. 4.3). 

Limited data are available about the long-term stability 
of soil and waste containing arsenic treated using S/S. 
Projects 12, 13, and 16 were part of one study that 
tested the leachability of arsenic six years after S/S was 
performed (see Case Study: Long-Term Stability of S/S 
or Arsenic). 

The case study on Whitmoyer Laboratories Superfund 
Site discusses in greater detail the treatment of arsenic 
using S/S. This information is summarized in Table 
4.1, Project 20. 

Applicability, Advantages, and Potential Limitations 

The mobility of arsenic depends upon its valence state, 
the reduction-oxidation potential of the waste disposal 
environment, and the specific arsenic compound 
contained in the waste (Ref. 4.1). This mobility is 
usually measured by testing the leachability ot arsenic 
under acidic conditions. In some disposal environments 
the leachability of arsenic may be different than that 


Case Study: Long-Term Stability of S/S of 
Arsenic 

EPA obtained leachate data from landfills accepting 
wastes treated using solidification/stabilization 
operated by Waste Management, Inc., Envirosafe, 
and Reynolds Metals. The Waste Management, Inc. 
landfills received predominantly hazardous wastes 
from a variety of sources, the Envirosafe landfill 
received primarily waste bearing RCRA waste code 
K061 (emission control dust and sludge from the 
primary production of steel in electric furnaces) and 
the Reynolds Metals facility was a monofill 
accepting waste bearing RCRA waste code K088 
(spent potliners from primary aluminum reduction). 
Analysis of the leachate from 80 landfill cells 
showed 9 cells, or 11%, had dissolved arsenic 
concentrations higher than the TCLP level of 5.0 
mg/L. The maximum dissolved arsenic 
concentration observed in landfill leachate was 120 
mg/L. Analysis of the leachate from 152 landfill 
cells showed 29 cells, or 19%, had total arsenic 
concentrations in excess of the TCLP level of 5.0 
mg/L. The maximum total arsenic concentration 
observed in landfill leachate was 1,610 mg/L (Ref. 
4.12). 

Another study reported the long-term stability of S/S 
technologies treating wastes from three landfills 
contaminated with heavy metals, including arsenic 
(Ref. 4.16). S/S was performed at each site using 
cement and a variety of chemical additives. TCLP 
testing showed arsenic concentrations ranging from 
zero to 0.017 mg/L after a 28-day cure time. Six 
years later, TCLP testing showed leachable arsenic 
concentrations that were slightly higher than those 
for a 28-day cure time (0.005 - 0.022 mg/L), but the 
levels remained below 0.5 mg/L. However, the 
stabilized waste was stored above ground, and 
therefore may not be representative of waste 
disposed in a landfill (see Projects 12, 13, and 16 in 
Table 4.1 and Table 4.2). 


predicted by an acidic leach test, particularly when the 
specific form of arsenic in the waste shows increased 
solubility at higher pH and the waste disposal 
environment has a high pH. Analytical data for 
leachate from monofills containing wastes bearing 
RCRA waste code K088 (spent aluminum potliners) 
indicate that arsenic may leach from wastes at levels 


4-3 




Case Study: Whitmoyer Laboratories 
Superfund Site 

The Whitmoyer Laboratories Superfund Site was a 
former veterinary feed additives and pharmaceuticals 
manufacturing facility. It is located on 
approximately 22 acres of land in Jackson Township, 
Lebanon County, Pennsylvania. Production began at 
the site in 1934. In the mid-1950's the facility began 
using arsenic in the production of feed additives. 
Soils on most of the area covered by the facility are 
contaminated with organic arsenic. 

Off-site stabilization began in mid-1999 and was 
completed by the spring of 2000. A total of 400 tons 
of soil were stabilized using a mixture of 10% water, 
10% ferric sulfate, and 5% Portland cement. The 
concentration of leachabile arsenic in the treated soil 
was below 5.0 mg/L, as measured by the TCLP. 
Information on the pretreatment arsenic leachability 
was not available. 


higher than those predicted by the TCLP (see Case 
Study: Long-term Stability of S/S of Arsenic). 

Some S/S processes involve pretreatment of the waste 
to render arsenic less soluble prior to stabilization (Ref. 
4.1,4.3). Such processes may render the waste less 
mobile under a variety of disposal conditions (See 
Projects 25, 26, 27,and 41 in Table 4.1), but also may 
result in significantly higher waste management costs 
for the additional treatment steps. 

In situ S/S processes may reduce the mobility of arsenic 
by changing it to less soluble forms, but do not remove 
the arsenic. Ensuring thorough mixing of the binder 
and the waste can also be challenging for in situ S/S 
processes, particularly when the subsurface contains 
large particle size soil and debris or subsurface 
obstructions. The long-term effectiveness of this type 
of treatment may be impacted if soil conditions cause 
the stabilized arsenic to change to more soluble and 
therefore more mobile forms. 

Summary of Cost Data 

The reported costs of treatment of soil containing 
metals using S/S range from $60 to $290 per ton (Ref. 

4.5, cost year not identified). Limited site-specific cost 
data are currently available for S/S treatment of arsenic. 
At two sites, (Projects 21 and 22), total project costs, in 
1995 dollars, were about $85 per cubic yard, excluding 
disposal costs (Ref. 4.21). 


Factors Affecting S/S Costs 

• Type of binder and reagent - The use of 

proprietary binders or reagents may be more 
expensive than the use of non-proprietary 
binders (Ref. 4.16). 

• Pretreatment - The need to pretreat soil and 
waste prior to S/S may increase management 
costs (Ref. 4.18). 

• Factors affecting S/S performance - Items in 
the “Factors Affecting S/S Performance” box 
will also affect costs. 


References 

4.1. U.S. EPA. Arsenic & Mercury - Workshop on 
Removal, Recovery, Treatment, and Disposal. 
Office of Research and Development. EPA-600- 
R-92-105. August 1992. 
http://epa.gov/ncepihom. 

4.2. U.S. EPA. Contaminants and Remedial Options 
at Selected Metal-Contaminated Sites. Office of 
Research and Development. EPA-540-R-95- 
512. July 1995. http://epa.gov/ncepihom. 

4.3. U.S. EPA. Final Best Demonstrated Available 
Technology (BDAT) Background Document for 
K031, K084, K101, K102, Characteristic Arsenic 
Wastes (D004), Characteristic Selenium Wastes 
(DO 10), and P and U Wastes Containing Arsenic 
and Selenium Listing Constituents. Office of 
Solid Waste. May 1990. 

4.4. U.S. EPA National Risk Management Research 
Laboratory. Treatability Database. March 2001. 

4.5. U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development. 
Engineering Bulletin, Technology Alternatives 
for the Remediation of Soils Contaminated with 
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Mercury, and 
Lead. Cincinnati, OH. March 1997. 
http://www.epa.gov/ncepi/Catalog/ 
EPA540S97500.html 

4.6. TIO. Database for EPA REACH IT 
(Remediation And Characterization Innovative 
Technologies). March 2001. 
http://www.epareachit.org. 

4.7. U.S. EPA. Solidification/Stabilization Use at 
Superfund Sites. Office of Solid Waste and 
Emergency Response. EPA 542-R-00-010. 
September 2000. http://clu-in.org. 

4.8. U.S. EPA. Treatment Technologies for Site 
Cleanup: Annual Status Report (Tenth Edition). 
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. 
EPA-542-R-01-004. February 2001. http://clu- 
in.org. 


4-4 





4.9. U.S. EPA. Treatment Technology Performance 
and Cost Data for Remediation of Wood 
Preserving Sites. Office of Research and 
Development. EPA-625-R-97-009. October 
1997. http://epa.gov/ncepihom. 

4.10. Code of Federal Regulations, Part 40, Section 
268. http://lula.law.comell.edu/cfr/ 
cfr.php?title=40&type=part&value=268 

4.11. Personal communication with Jim Sook, 

Chemical Waste Management, Inc. March 2001. 

4.12. Federal Register. Land Disposal Restrictions: 
Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 
Volume 65, Number 118. June 19, 2000. pp. 
37944 - 37946. 

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-WASTE/ 
2000/June/Day-19/fl 5392.htm 

4.13. U.S. EPA. Biennial Reporting System. Draft 
Analysis. 1997. 

4.14. Fuessle, R.W. and M.A. Taylor. Stabilization of 
Arsenic- and Barium-Rich Glass Manufacturing 
Waste. Journal of Environmental Engineering , 
March 2000. pp. 272 - 278. 
http://www.pubs.asce.org/joumals/ee.html 

4.15. Wickramanayake, Godage, Wendy Condit, and 
Kim Cizerle. Treatment Options for Arsenic 
Wastes. Presented at the U.S. EPA Workshop on 
Managing Arsenic Risks to the Environment: 
Characterization of Waste, Chemistry, and 
Treatment and Disposal. Denver, CO. May 1 - 
3,2001. 

4.16. Klich, Ingrid. Permanence of Metals 
Containment in Solidified and Stabilized Wastes. 
A Dissertation submitted to the Office of 
Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in 
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the 
degree of Doctor of Philosophy. December 
1997. 

4.17. Klean Earth Environmental Company. Spring 
Hill Mine Study. August 2001. 
http://www.keeco.com/spring.htm. 

4.18. Markey, R. Comparison and Economic Analysis 
of Arsenic Remediation Methods Used in Soil 
and Groundwater. M.S. Thesis. FAMU-FSU 
College of Engineering. 2000. 

4.19. Bates, Edward, Endalkachew Sable-Demessie, 
and Douglas W. Grosse. Solidification/ 
Stabilization for Remediation of Wood 
Preserving Sites: Treatment for Dioxins, PCP, 
Creosote, and Metals. Remediation. John Wiley 
& Sons, Inc. Summer 2000. pp. 51 - 65. 

http://www.wiley.com/cda/product/ 

0„REM,00.html 

4.20. Palfy, P., E. Vircikova, and L. Molnar. 

Processing of Arsenic Waste by Precipitation and 
Solidification. Waste Management. Volume 19. 
1999. pp. 55 - 59. 

http://sdnp.delhi.nic.in/node/jnu/database/ 


biogeoch/bioch99.html 

4.21 Redwine JC. Successful In Situ Remediation 
Case Histories: Soil Flushing And 
Solidification/Stabilization With Portland 
Cement And Chemical Additives. Southern 
Company Services, Inc. Presented at the Air and 
Waste Management Association’s 93 rd Annual 
Conference and Exhibition, Salt Lake City, June 
2000 . 

4.22 Miller JP. In-Situ Solidification/Stabilization of 
Arsenic Contaminated Soils. Electric Power 
Research Institute. Report TR-106700. Palo 
Alto, CA. November 1996. 

4.23 E-mail from Bhupi Khona, U.S. EPA Region 3 to 
Sankalpa Nagaraja, Tetra Tech EM, Inc., 
regarding S/S of Arsenic at the Whitmoyer 
Laboratories Superfund site. May 3, 2002. 


4-5 


Table 4.1 

Solidification/Stabilization Treatment Performance Data for Arsenic 


<u 

u 

U. 

s 
o 
c n 


v 

Vi 

4) 

o 

o 

u Jr 
© 

u 3 

4» O 

■o *•= 

S « 

*© N 

S3 

IS 

55 

4m 

C/3 


.«/ g 

•= •© 

£ 2 
t. “ 

< e — — 

-= g wo xi 

* s S « 

CJ 


J 

'53d 

” £ 


T3 

O 


OH 

X 


55 

= s 

£*■* O 
x (j 


55 

4> 

X 


<D 

H 


O C 

*3 .2 u & g 

8 «®3?9 

i i m€ ^ 

<. j- J 2 <© 

- g 'OJD W 


O 

X! 

*- 

© 


•i=cSS^£ 
*3 ® w x sE 


£ u 


c 

o 


41 


55 *- « 

O © Q 
o a/ 1-1 

— s 


J 2 o 
4. 0 . *-5 

E -c £ 

Z « E 
© r 9 

•ts U 

C/3 


_o 

"eS 

© 

C/3 


.2 

■5 

41 


4) 

■fcj 

c/5 

T3 

= ^ 
55 a. 

s- H 

4- ^ 

«5 

3 

■o 

3 


u CJ 
41 JQ 

©* E 

»- 3 

®- z 


.2 

’■5 

© 


« 

*4 

3 

4 

E 

3 

O 

U 

’> 

3 

X 


00 

3- 


.2 *8 
— x 
x -r 

rv 

I & 

C3 r- 

od 3 
o »- 
- S 

g o 
E ^ 
u -2 


4> 

-44 

,3 

X 

3 

C/5 

4> 

'E 

,© 


-o 

© 

«C 

o 

© 

ci. 

VI 

3 

3 


3 <U 

£ f 

00 o 


3 

C/3 

"O 

3 

3 

© 

'5 

3 

00 

o 

3 


X 

X 

U 

H 

X 

'ob 

E 


o 

V 


00 

X 

'ob 

E 


<N 

i 

IT) 


3 

X 


4> 

00 

-a 

3 __ 

M '5 
<« 

° -o 
o c 
o 3 
o 

o 

(N 


3 

Vi 

O 

X 

Vi 


00 

3" 


Wh .O 

2 S 

■£ 3 

° £? m 
4 g -o 

! © -§ 
4 1J 

cE^ 

e 8. § 

C/3 

C 
3 


© 

u 


Cu 

X 

U 

H 

X 

~ob 

E 

CTi 

V 


00 

X 

"ob 

E 

VO 


a 

z 


-a 

3 



3 

> 

3 

<5 




-o 

3 


£ 

4) 

< 

oo 

© 

© 

3 

z 

u. 

4» 

X 

x 

05 

© 

© 

o 

U 

«s 

i- 

4» 

H 

X 

3 

X 


u 

3 

GO 

X 

u, 

3 

*3 

X 

3 

s 

OO 

O 

4> r 

■4—* 

12 

t/5 

3 

OO 

3 

’> 

3 

O 

v> 

3 

_o 

C3 

<L) 

4-* 

c/5 

4) 

© 

o 

O 

3 

O 

o 

3 

c 

C/0 

u 

41 

-44 

d 

oo 

© 

3 

X 


< 

X 

4» 

3 

'—5 

-4—* 

GO 


O 

< 

4) 

E 

GO 



3 

U. 


4) 

00 

T3 

_3 — 

c« O 

fr-S 

g S 

o 

m 


oo 

_c 

'E 

3 

•— 

H 

x 

C/3 

3 

•— 

u 

p 


o 

< s 

<u 

"O 

4> 

X 


(N 


OO 

•3- 


_o 

*3 

3 

00 

4. 

o 

_c 

-o 

a> 

O 

4) 

a, 

C/3 

c 

3 


0 - 

X 

U 

h 

X 

~ob 

E 

(N 

V 


X 

~ob 

|fc 

2 x 


o 

vn 


3- 

ON 


3 

3 

C 

3 


3 

X 


O 

C/3 

>> 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

CTl 


"O 

c 

3 

00 

c 

•3 00 

.E c 

4) 

2 E 
O C/5 

*3 

4—» 

a> 


m 


oo 

3" 


"O 

4) 

"O X 
c 


3 

■M 

3 
4) 

E 

4> tH 

u « 


O 

'5 


O. 3 
Vi 00 


3 

3 


O 

3 


cu 

X 

O 

H 

X 

"ob 

£ 

CT) 

V 


00 

X 

'ob 

£ 

00 


r<3 


o 3c 

- .2,0 <* 

3 O ^ ON 

= a: ^ 2 

-a 4> X 
3 E 3 ^ g 

3 3 a> -o jd 

S 2 £ S E 

Lu •— 4> X qj 

> c>o t: -3 

3 3 a/ D. 

x s a. *y 

3 3 C/D 

2 


3 

X 


o 

c/3 

>5 

4 > 

O 

© 

o 


00 
C/3 .£ 

3 u, 
O P 


4) 

00 

3 


.3 u 
3 c2 O 

3 F-! 4-> 

S c 00 

^ 3 


3; 

3" 


3 

4» 

E 

4> 

U 


H 

X 

X 

X 

'ob 

E 

00 

(N 

o 


H 

X 

X 

X 

'5b 

£ 

00 


3 

X 


O 

00 


vn 


3; 

3- 


3 

4) 

E 

4) 

u 


x 

X 

u 

H 

X 

'ob 

E 

© 

© 


x 

x 

u 

H 

X 

~ob 

E 

© 


3 

X 


O 

OO 


© 


3; 

3- 


4) 

-a 

3 

IS 

2 

3 

4. 

4) 

‘C 

X 

o 


H 

X 

X 

X 

lob 

E 

© 

3- 

© 

© 

© 


X 

'ob 

E P 

NO x 
oo X 
© ^ 
© 

©3 


3 

X 


o 

00 


3; 

3- 


4) 

-a 

3 

IS 

& 

3 

44 

■H 

•C 

x 

o 


X 

X 

o 

H 

X 

'ob 

E 

(N 

© 

© 

© 

V 


X 

"ob /-> 

3 X 
C X 

© t, 
© w 

© 


3 

X 


O 

00 


OO 


3- 

3" 


4» 

-a 

3 


3 

•4-> 

.E 

•c 

x 

o 

H 

X 


X 

X 

u 

H 

X 

'ob 

E 

m 

m 

© 

© 


X 

E x 
t- u 

s b 

© 


3 

X 


o 

oo 


© 






























Table 4.1 

Solidification/Stabilization Treatment Performance Data for Arsenic (continued) 


Source 

4.3 

4.1 

4.16 

4.16 

4.1 

4.15 

4.16 

4.8 

Binder or 

Stabilization Process 

fly ash, cement, and 
proprietary reagent 

l 

I 

Cement and proprietary 

additives 

Cement and proprietary 

additives 

i 

I 

Potassium persulfate, 

ferric sulfate, and 

cement 

Proprietary binder 

Cement 

Final Arsenic 
Concentration 
(mg/kg) or 
Leachability (mg/L) 
(Test method) 

0.11- 0.26 mg/L 
(TCLP) 

0.04 mg/L (TCLP) 

CU 

U 

"O 

o 

Q 

Z 

cu 

-1 

O 

H 

6t) 

E 

r- 

o 

o 

0.27 mg/L (EPT) 

6.5 mg/L (WET) 

1.24- 3.44 mg/L 

(TCLP) 

Cu 

hJ 

u 

H 

i-J 

'bb 

E 

T3 

o 

o 

© 

55 mg/L (TCLP) 

Initial Arsenic 
Concentration 
(mg/kg) or 
Leachability 
(mg/L) (Test 
method) 

2,430 mg/kg 

0.10 mg/L (TCLP) 

40 mg/kg 

92 mg/kg 

0.60 mg/L (EPT) 
28.0 mg/L (WET) 

260,000 mg/kg 

4,310 - 4,390 mg/L 
(TCLP) 

42 mg/kg 

1 - 672 mg/kg 

Site Name, Location, 
and Project 
Completion Date b 

s 

s 

Imperial Oil Co - 
Champion Chemical 
Co Superfund Site, 
NJ 

Imperial Oil Co - 
Champion Chemical 
Co Superfund Site, 
NJ 

t 

l 

I 

I 

Portable Equipment 
Salvage Co, OR 

Macgillis And 
Gibbs/Bell Lumber 
And Pole Superfund 
Site, MN 
February 1998 

QJ 

15 

u 

C/5 

Full 

Full 

Full 

Full 

Full 

Full 

Full 

Full 

Waste or Media 

Soil 

Soil 

Filter cake and 
oily sludge 

Soil 

Soil 

3,800 tons sludge 
and soil 

Soil 

14,800 cy soil 

Industry and Site 
Type 

I 

I 

l 

I 

Oil Processing & 
Reclamation 

Oil Processing & 
Reclamation 

Pesticides 

Pharmaceutical 

Transformer and 
Metal Salvage 

Wood Preserving 










ij 









a> -O 

o 

__ 

Cl 

m 


>r> 


r-~ 

'© E 


H 





» 1 

’— 

S- 3 









^ z 



























Table 4.1 

Solidification/Stabilization Treatment Performance Data for Arsenic (continued) 


a i 
o 
s- 
3 
O 
C/5 


SO 

^f- 


oo 

■3- 


co 

(N 


— <N 
(N ^ 
rf ■'t 


-* <N 
C ) 


Os 


C/2 

c/2 

a» 

o 

o 

o cu 
s- C 

4/ © 

•a •- 

.E ^ 

ca .a 

z 

« 

*-« 

CZ5 


E 

■£ « 
° o £ * X 

« u u ,2 c 

3 S O N 3 

U 3 o = 2 

ol > <a -s £ 

^3 3 U 

X to ^ 

4) 

-C 


= c 

Q. © 

3 M 

_ "5 

g 

c § 

0> c/3 

E 3 

u tT 

u co 


O c 
.to 

E: E 

3 O 

c/2 CJ 

o "o 
•p c 
P co 

c£ p 
3 O 

U Q- 

to "O 

> 3 
> co 


c/2 

3 

O 

fc 

c£ 

X) 

c 

*-» 

c 

(U 

£ 

O 

u 


(U 


<2 


3 

C/2 


C/2 

3 

O 

t 

£ 

T3 
C 
3 
*—* 
C 
o 

£ 

CL) 

u 


<L> 

<2 

3 

C/2 


U 

XJ 

_3 

Z 

b 

3 
*—► 
_a> 
"P 
o. 
o 


- 

U C "wo jp' 

c •- 3 s o 

u tS ® w j= 

>- £ Mb 1 U 
< 3 ^ — E 

■3 g 00 Z -w 

5 e 3 3 c/> 

3 E 3 — u 

£ u ~tt 

<u 

- 


►J 

'Bb 

E 

Os 

<N 


V2 

O 

© 


U 

h 

hJ 

"Bo 

E 

<N 

O 


a. 

hJ 

U 

H 

J 

'So 

E 

m 

V 


CU 

-J 

U 

H 


Q 

Z 


Cu 

J 

U 

H 

oc 

m 


rs 

<N 

O 


Cu 

J 

U 

H 

'Bo 

E 

o 

V 


O 3 

s .2 u C £ 

4) *- O 33 ^ Jp- 

c/2 3 _ r“ X! 

b i WD "S w ® 

^ r- “ x—v JS 

■■ ^ +md 

.2 | e R Mg 

+* c 3 a,/ e = 

*3 O ^ Jj 3 

Z 0 w 


60 

'Bb 

E 

oo 

<N 


Os 


00 


00 

'Bb 

E 

o 

o 

<N 

SO 


^ -J 

J 

CU 

'Bb 

£ 3 — 

^ 35 

c 3 ^ 

1—1 

U 

0 - 

0 " cu 

H 

0 ^ -J 

0 j 


O CC 2 (J 

Os 3 U 

-J 

(N • H 

- ■ E— 

* 3 ) 

1 r) w 

1 GO 

3 

'r, 3 " 

IT) ^ 


0 z; 

0 0 

O 

V 

V 



.2 % 

■G ■« 

3 3 

<J i**\ 

O 4) W 

J !s 

<u £ '-C 

E -o 

5 c s’ 
Z « E 

<u 

.tS U 

CZ3 


X3 

3 

■a Z 

O v- 

o 

^ 3 ^ 

^ Z CO OS 
00 . OC 

oo o os 
3.-3 — 

3 

3 (L) 

Cu C/2 

0/ 


o 

3 

<D 

E 


<u 

. c« to 

o..22 Lo 

o O ^ 
E to S 
ts fe Z 

3 O i- 
f O U 
>3 0. 

J 5 

GO 


-a 

3 < 

U 


3 

33 CTi 

•P O' 

o 0 s 


3 

T3 cn 

•C O' 
o Os 

Pu ” 


<u 

•— 

3 „ 

co iu 

“5 o. 3 

<d t, e 
u, 3 

0- GO 


c oo 
3 Qs 

<L> 3s 
3 00 oO — 

E .E 1 

-3 C3 u 

0 3*-; 

H 


Z 

o 

C/5 


3 

U* 


3 

PU 


3 

PU 


_o 


_o 


_o 

(X 


.2 

"3 

a 


u. 

O 

4) 

*-* 

C/2 

3 


O 

GO 


O 

C/2 

>s 

O 

o 

o 

o 

CO 


c/2 

c 

o 

- 4 —* 

o 

o 

X- 


o 

C/2 

Xs 

O 

o 

o 

o 


o 

C/2 

>s 

o 

o 

o 

CO 

co 


o 

C/5 


4) 

*— 

■a 

5 * 

3 o, 
>. r > 
*- H 
1/2 

3 

T3 

s 


00 

c 

■g 

<L) 

c/2 

O 

l_ 

CU 

-o 

o 

o 


00 

c 


0) 

C/2 

<L> 


T3 

O 

o 


1 Z 2 C 



c 
_o 
+-* 
3 
*—* 
C/2 

x» 


3 

O 

"P 
*—* 
CJ 

jy 

pj 


c 

_o 

to 

*-» 

C/2 

X) 

3 

C/2 

"3 

CJ 


o 

JU 

PU 


00 

c 


<u 

C/2 

0/ 


-a 

o 

o 

£ 


*—» 

o 4/ 
U X 

•o’ E 
Jr 3 
Z 


00 


Os 


o 

rt 


rj 


<N 

<N 


c<2 

(N 

















Table 4.1 

Solidification/Stabilization Treatment Performance Data for Arsenic (continued) 


o 

C/5 


va 

t/i 

at 

o> 

o 

U J- 

© ft. 
1- c 
u o 

.E ^ 

(5 -H 

X 

R 

U- 

C/5 


c 

c 


"E 

0> 3 

!_ H 

< - 
_ o» 

| I 

u. U 


E = o 

w w JS 
£ wd a 

b x 5 E 

00 X *- 

E « s 

£ 
at E- 
r w 
a 

X 


.a g - ~ 

c .2 -m «« 

Ot *- O X £ JO- 

c/i ^ _ »— r— ^3 

*2 £ 00 -® w © 

^ JS J 

&D O \ 


i- 

< B 

■3 u Ofc 
•-C = E ^ 

'S 8 w J 

JS u 


R — 

v - E 


x 

=^c at 

00 £ 


s 

# o 

%-* 

C3 

W 

O 

CJ 

O 

a/ 

X 

©■ 

_ 

S>M 


X 

E 

"O 

R 

2 

z 

R 

u 

C/5 



at 

-X- 

n 

Q 

c 

_o 

■*- 

_U 

Q. 

E 

© 

U 


at 

R 

Ol 

C/5 


•O 

at 


at 

■*— 

a 

■a 

E « 

R Q. 

>- H 

c/a 

3 

■o 


*- ft 

o at 
U X 

'o’ E 

£ Z 


c/a 

a* 


tya 

R 


R 


c/a 

2 

■o 

C 


X 

X 

u 

H 

iX 

~S0 

£ 

oc 

V> 


U 

H 

X 

'So 

E 

o 

© 

r- 


3 

x 


O 

x 


gx 

2 o 
x o 


U 

u. <U 

3 3 
a -£ 


<L> 

"3 

“><§ & 
■3 2 2 
o 2 x 

o c Cl 
X ft 


■R- 

(N 


HE -o 

O « 

R $ 

Z O 
-5 x 

. — 0—i 


c 

0 

- 1—1 

R 


X 

c/a 

R 


* U .N X! 
£ O — u 
.2 r x 
r Z 3 
!2 -3 ? 

X c >> 

O «» 


X 

-J 

U 

H 

-J 

'SO 

£ 

m 

R- 


o 

o 

© 

o' 

R" 

I 

o 

o 

©^ 

«n 


00 

x 

'So 

£ 


3 

x 


1 -5 
c la 

U 3 

f/3 c/D 


a- — 

o 

0- 2 o 
XT ^ O 
-C aj *“ 

at b= 

—» 

« u x 
' ,r a. 

o 


u 

R 


bfi 


-a 

o 

o 

u. 


3 

C 

R 

£ 


m 

(N 


3 

_o 

R 

•o 

X 

O 


_. >%”S 

■g X ^ 

s « -S 
I I ^ 


"O £ 

2 o 

-a o 

>. R 

•= z 


c 

0 

-1—* 

R 
_ N 

X 

R 

— 

c/a 


Cu 

hJ 

u 

H 

J 

~S0 

£ 


o 

V 


o 

o 

O r 

o 

■R" 

1 

o 

o 

o__ 

in 


b0 

~S0 

£ 


3 

Pu 


2 u 
£ 

o g 
u 3 

crt c/a 


^ r- 

0 l 

ft- 2 

= U 

«3i 

s ,M-§. 


o 

•— 

U 


bO 

1 

T3 

O 

O 

Pu 


c/a 

R -= 
R Q. 

E 


x 

(N 


U 

§. U - 
^ O >. x 
r r x .a 

C 0 -t3 ^ 

P 3 > c 
c C > o 

IS «« O ■ rr 


U 


S i 2 

£ 

u 

o 


x 

R 


C 

u 

£ 

u 

o 

~a 

c 

R 


cu 

J 

O 

H 

J 

~S0 

£ 


o 

V 


o 

o 

o 

o 80 

Rf X 
1 bo 

s E 

in 


3 

Ph 


S 3 u 
£ 

0 ta 
c cc 

U 3 

c/a t/a 


^ r- 

O E ^ 

ft- g o 
” X o 
^ u t - 
u b 

"T3 —* 

R 0 

bocS ft- 
? 0 
R ’o. 
£ Q - 


u 
■*—1 

R 


■o 

o 

o 

p- 


r- 

<N 


■R; 

•R" 


c/a 

ft > 
<P .£ 
X — 

o 

■ft ^ 

— 1 . 

R R3 
U 

C 0- 

- G 
u 
Cl 
c/a 

C 
3 


£ 

u 

U 


0- 

hJ 

u 

H 

J 

"SO 

£ 

<N 

O 

o 

0 

V 


X 

E x 

m U 

§ b 

o 


3 

X 


U 

--- 

c/a 

R 

£ 

Q 


00 

(N 


■R^ 

■R- 


c« 

ft > 
<p .2 
X — 

o 

-3 ^ 

R -3 
- 

C x 

a u 

£ u 
U Q. 

u g 

3 


X 

X 

u 

H 


b0 

E 

m 

(N 

o 

o 

o 


H 

X 

X 

X 

~S0 

£ 

o 

o 


3 

X 


u 

C/D 

cd 

Q 


o 

(N 


■R^ 

-R- 


c/a 

ft > 

X *- 
O ^ 

•§ ^ 
C X 

C ‘3 

ft £ 
u x 

U g 

3 


H 

X 

X 

X 

'So 


<N 

O 

o 


H 

x 

X 

X 

"So 

£ 


o 

o 


3 

X 


u 

b/5 

-3 

_3 

C/5 


O 

rn 


■R" 

■R - 


c/a 

ft ^ 
.2 
X — 

O Ig 
■O ^ 

§-s 

't-* i-L 

C X 
u 


£ 

u 

U 


x 

X 

u 

H 

X 

'So 

£ 

CM 

o 

o 

o 

V 


X 

>X 

E x 

R- U 

5 b 

o 


3 

X 


U 

b0 

•3 

_3 

C/5 


m 


•R- 






























Table 4.1 

Solidiflcation/Stabilization Treatment Performance Data for Arsenic (continued) 


3 

o 

s_ 

3 

O 

iz> 


4t 

b 


■' 1 - 

b 


b 


b 


m 

b 


m 

b 


</! 

CO 

3 

3 

c 

1 — > 
o ®- 
l- c 

3 O 

■O -C 

ea .H 
15 

■M 

on 


JO 

CO 

03 

>. 

q£ 

"O 

3 

C3 

■*-* 

C 

4) 

£ 

<D 

u 


-o 

c 

c3 

JO gj 
CO — 
C3 ,C3 
4L 
>n *3 


T3 

3 

C3 

3 

3 

£ 

<L> 

u 


-a 

c 

03 

-3 

on 3 

>,43 

CC 3 
33 M 
3 O 
C3 C 
-♦—» J—« 
3 c2 
3 

£ 

3 

O 


c 

o 

_C3 

3 

« 55 
o cl 

• 3 


3 


c 
_o 
*•*—* 
3 


3 

00 „ . „ 
33 x> .tS 


."2 F -= -o 


00 


a 

c 

3 

o 


X 

o 


CO gj 


3 > 

— 030 

^ - c = 

.2 3 3 ,0 

r" -*—» C/D -4 -h 
C oo 
(U CS C3 

s * 


o \= 


0) 

<L- 



3 

£ 

O 

_o 


£ 


c 

0 

t 

3 

— 

4 -* 

c3 

c2 

00 

T3 



-a 


23 

T3 ^ 

3 

O 

X 

0 

c 2 

C/3 

0 ) 

^ c 
> 0 

03 

15 

0 

O 

•*-* 

03 

C 

0 *^3 
— 03 

N 

d) 

3 

,0 N 


£ 

4 -* 

C/3 

C/3 

i-H 

<4-4 

X) 


03 

03 

JO 

03 

-3 



03 

-*—• 

C/3 

u 



C/3 


u 5 eopr 

c •- £ 5 o 

^ Q w -C 
*« is WO 3 

< e p 3 E 
~ co 15 *- 
2 = s « sp 

Eu It 

3 

~ 


H H 
W a, 

£ s 

P b 
oo c J 
£ £ 
o T ^ 

<N . 

«n ° 


CL 

J 

u 

H 

'So 

£ 

no 

o 

o 


CL 

X 

U 

H 

p 

'Bo 

£ 

ON 

© 

o 


cu rr 

n ^ 

H B 


p 

'Bo 


p 

'Bo 

£ 


1! 

v v 


a. 

x 

U 

f— 


oo 

£ 

m 

no 

NO 


Cl 

X 

u 

E— 


00 


V 


CL 

u 

H 

p 

'So 

£ 

v 


CL 

X 

u 

H 

a 

z 


3 — 

o, c I 
J = ^ 

y ^ 3 

b 3 ts ^ 

g>* 

s e| 

ON ^ O 

52 J 


hJ 

'So 

£ 

ON 


NT) 

o 

o 

V 


t-J 

^0 

- £ 
^ ON 

—J r- 


m 

o ^ 

c3 


4 —• 

C/3 

d> 

4 -* 


00 

3 


JC 

in 

C J 
03 

ON 

_3 

X 

0) 

CL 

c 

15 

4—» 

03 


.2 u 

_ *- o s ^ ^ 

S ' 3 3 •— H "O 

is oo w © 
s ^ 2 3 5 

2 oo o ^ 4> 

2 c s eo £ 

O B 2 E 

U J w 


a 

1 /5 

Im 

< 


H P 

^ w 

-1 b 
'So ^ 

£ £ 
o P 

<N ^ 


CL 

-J 

U 

H 

J 

~Si) 

£ 

o 

<N 

3t 


CL 

-1 

u 

f— 


00 

E 

r- 

o 

o 


a. £■ 
-1 H 
U 
H 


Cl 

UJ 


-j b 
'Bb g 

B I 

S2 


CL 

-I 

U 

h 

p 

'So 

£ 

NO 

O' 

ON 


CL 

hJ 

U 

H 

p 

'00 

£ 

NO 


Cl 

J 

O 

H 

p 

'SO 

£ 

00 


00 

p 

'So 

£ 

o 

o 

o 

NO r 


00 

p 

'00 

£ 

o 

o 

o 

o' 

00 

(N 


00 

p 

'BO 

£ 

o 

o 

o 

o 

m 

r^- 



r: 

O 

4-» 

4-* 

« 


c 

*0* 

L 

a. 

3 

_o 

"■w 

3 

T5 

3 

CL 

3 

£ 

0 

u 


e 

o 


o 

o 

-J 


3 

Z 

a» 

C/2 


a> 

c 


00 

_c 

‘C 

Q. 

cn 


3 

c 

3 
•*—» 

3 

O 


_o 

3 

O 

cn 


3 

u. 


3 

[JL 


3 

Ll 


3 

Ci. 


O 

al 


o 

CL 


o 

CL 


_o 

£X 


_o 

CL 


_o 

CL 


.2 

■5 

o 


4) 

00 

33 

3 


4) 

12 

O 


to 

4) 

CL 


2 <u 
to 3 

3 2 

2 o 

3 J 

o _ 
T3 — 

C3 rQ 
N g 
c3 E 

T ^ 


<D 

C/3 

C3 

1/5 

3 

o 

33 

l— 

3 

N 

3 

X 


2 33 
co c 

3 o 
£ CX 


co 


4» 

00 

33 

3 


3 ° 

O 3 
33 

2 4) co 

3 C 
N — 

3 « 

X .5 


«n 

o 

o 

Q 

b 

o 

o 

a 


4) 


m 
o 
o 

Q co 

I s 

Q 


m 

o 

O 3 
Q to 

I s 

Q 


C/3 

bD 

'G 

’5 

H 

<D 

C 


CL 5« 
co 

_*r « 

3f ■*-; 
O 3! 

o « 
Q 


CO 

< 

<N 

O 

CL 


■*— 

15 

33 

E 4) 

3 CL 

»- H 
•*- L 

CO 

3 

-o 

3 


4) 

12 

0 


CO 

4> 

a- 


3 

co 

O 

Q. 

co 

•£ 

4) 
■*—* 
CO 
3 


3 

4> 

£ 

c3 

a> 


a> 

•4—* 

C/3 

C3 


c 

4> 

£ 

3 

4) 


4» 
-*—» 

C/3 

c3 


00 

_c 

- n 

3 
-*—* 
0 

<2 

3 

c 

3 

2 

C/3 

C/3 

03 

a 


00 

3 


O 

£ 

3 

e 

3 


CO 

CO 

_3 

a 


oc 

c 


o 

X- 

3 

C 

3 


co 

co 

_3 

a 


00 

3 


-M I- 

fj 4» 

a> Xi 

•5 s £ 
=5 

^ Z 


CN 

m 


rn 

m 


3- 

m 


m 

m 


NO 

m 


r- 

rn 


00 

m 


ON 

rn 


o 

■3f 






















Table 4.1 

Solidification/Stabilization Treatment Performance Data for Arsenic (continued) 


Source 

4.20 


4.6 

OO 

Binder or 

Stabilization Process 

Embedding calcium 
and ferric 

arsenates/arsenites in a 
cement matrix 


In situ treatment of 

contaminated soil by 

injecting pH 

adjustment agents and 

phosphates 

In situ treatment of 

contaminated soil by 

injecting a solution of 

ferrous iron, limestone, 

and potassium 

permanganate 

Final Arsenic 
Concentration 
(mg/kg) or 
Leachability (mg/L) 
(Test method) 

0.823 mg/L (TCLP) 


ND C - 1 mg/L (type of 
analysis not reported) 

! 

Initial Arsenic 
Concentration 
(mg/kg) or 
Leachability 
(mg/L) (Test 
method) 

6,430 mg/L 

ND C - 50 mg/L 
(type of analysis 
not reported) 

S 

Site Name, Location, 
and Project 
Completion Date 1 ’ 

1 

l 

Wisconsin DNR- 
Orchard Soil 

Silver Bow 
Creek/Butte Area 
Superfund Site, MT 
1998 

« 

"s 

0 

C/3 

Pilot 


Full 

Full 

Waste or Media 

Sludge 

C 

O 

e 

’■*- 

cs 

IS 

03 

Soil, 5,000 cubic 
yards 

Soil, 50,000 
cubic yards 

Industry and Site 
Type 

1 

1 

Agricultural 
application of 
pesticides 

Wood preserving 
wastes, soil, 50,000 
cubic yards 

+* Jr 


C/3 



0> -O 

<N 

3 

m 


0 E 





£ 3 

(X z 


S 

** 




-O 

J3 

ra 

> 

co 

w 

o 

c 

<u 

— 

03 

c/3 

<U 

C/3 

CO 


-o 

<u 

N 


x> 

CO 

-t—* 

C/3 

G-, 

O 


JD 

CO 

J= 

o 

co 

_<u 

<D 


c 

o 

CO 

cO 

-a 

a> 

s- 

<D 

-C 

£ 

C/3 

+-* 

O 

0J 

'o’ 

u, 

CX 

jd 

co 

o 

C/3 


CX 

-a 

c 

c0 


C/3 

<u 

~0 

_3 

X 

<u 

o 

C/3 


O 

U 

‘o’ 

cx 

co 

o 

C/3 


O 

c 

<u 

-G 


CO 

C/3 

CD 

-a 

_3 

a 

X 

UJ 

co 


c 

o 


o 

<u 

'o' 

X. 

cx 

c 

o 

CO 

"2 

•6 

CL) 

E 

<D 

Xn 

"0 

C 

cE 

X. 

<u 

cx 

3 

GO 

i_ 

c£ 

T3 

<L> 

-a 

> . 
O -XD 
^ <D 


c/3 -r* 

<u > 
*0 O 

co X- 

■o cx 

I § 

<u .ti 

II 

o c 

w o 


o 

0) 


o 

a> 


2 * 
a- Q 

-O o 


CO 

cO 

T3 

— 

O 

H 



<N 


_X> 

-O 

CO 

H 

<u 

<u 

GO 

C/3 

CO 

■o 

oc 

(N 

X. 

cu 

etc 

co 

"O 

CD 

N 

3 

c 

< 

-a 


EPT = Extraction procedure toxicity test. 

-- = Not available TCLP = Toxicity characteristic leaching procedure TWA = Total waste analysis 

WET = Waste extraction test OU = Operable Unit cy = Cubic yard 

mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogram mg/L = Milligrams per liter 























Table 4.2 

Long-Term Solidification/Stabilization Treatment Performance Data for Arsenic 


e 

u © 

© rc 

3 « 

n 

T3 — 
= G 
09 2 

C/2 


C 

cu 

V3 

3 

2 

3 

J= 

o 

3 

CU 

G 


e 

o 


S3 <U 
3 >- 


c 

o> 
o 
c 
© 
j- u 

<u w 
H 

i 

two 

s 

© 

-3 


3 

O 

3 

53 

4> 

H 

v© 


2 

"3 

"g 


■c 

© 


© 

c 

© 


4W •© 

53 G 
3 3 


JU 

e 

o» 

1/1 

3 

^ « 3 

— c O 

« a* 

•I = 

G O 

U 


4> 


3 w 
J ■« 

OO 

0-1 


| §2 
8 1 | .a 


3 
«— 0 » 


3 U C 

5 S © -«(! 
•- S G ^ 


A U 


o H 


3 

© 

oj c 

S .2 

“ -w 

3 53 

^ © 

2 -J 

c/5 


2 

3 

U 

C/2 


3 

o e3 

2 '-5 

vi U 

3 <5 


c /2 

© © 

>. ?; 

H 

VI c 

3 

•o 

3 


3 

<3 © 

© JO 

'© E 
. u 3 
*■ z 


S & VI 
3 3 © 

, > 

c ^ •- 

3 ••— 4-* 

<U U= 

E g. ^ 

O "O 

<U 3 « 

U CL 


G 

Ipg 

£ j 
UO U 

§ b 

o 


G 

l?G 

£ J 

O' CJ 

§ b 

o 


cu 

G 

U 

H 

XI 

Q 

Z 


oo 

g 

'oo 

E 

o 

3" 


O 

U 


3 


o B 
§ U 


a. 3 

E ° 

3 


(L) CJ 

G 

P 


E 

a> 

_3 

CJ 


-o 

c 

2 

i— 

<u 

G 

3 

00 


© 

^ £ 
° 5 

© T3 
+S 3 
•— 3 

G 


© 

00 

•o 

3 


2 >§ 

8 1 

<D H 

8 J 

>- o 
G © 
— G 


2 «« 

3 3 © 
-*—* 

•3 <L> G 

3 • »— 4—* 

© J- 35 

E g 
O -O 

© 3 C3 

CJ G. 


^G 
£ _j 

(N U 
n t_ 
O w 


G 

G 
£ G 

- cj 

(N f— 
O w 

O 


G 

-J 

u 

H 

G 

'Bo 

r— 

3 

o 

cd 


00 

G 

'oo 

E 

(N 

O' 


o 

U 


o 

U 


3 


G 3 

E B 
_ « E 

3 -= <U 

a> (J G 

I ° 


<u 

4—» 

c/5 

T3 

C ~- 

2 Z 

3 

<u 

G 

3 

OO 


3 

G 


O 

0 O 


«a 

§ 

1 | 
8 J 

G OJ 
— 2 


<N 


3 s- 

2 -S 

G •£ 
O G 

3 

G 


G 

^G 
E G 
m U 

§ b 

o 


G 

G 

U 

H 

G 

'oo 

E 

o 

o 


00 

G 

oO 

£ 

CN 


2 

JO 

3 

e 

o 

G 


3 

1 > 


3 

cr 

G 


2 

O 

o 

U 

<u 

oo 

3 

_> 

3 

00 


3 

G 


O 

00 


-a 

C <u 
3 00 

3 ^ 

<D >, 

E S3 

3 C/2 

^ « 

C <L) 

2 S 

H 


rO 


2 

G 

_3 

3 

> 

3 

O 

c 

a> 

3 

3 

C/3 

<U 

4-* 

C/3 

3 


-o 

0 / 

N 


G 

3 

w 

C/3 

G 

o 


G 

3 

_C 

O 

3 

2 

<u 

-3 

4—* 

c 

o 

3 

4—* 

3 

-a 

<u 

3 

<D 

-3 


O 

OJ 

'o’ 

3 

G 

2 

3 

O 

1/3 


G 

*o 

C 

3 


C/3 

<L> 

-a 

_3 

o 

X 

<u 

o 

c/i 


o 

<u 



'o’ 

Vm 

Q, 

-o 

cu 

2 




JJ 

> 




C3 

o 




o 

3 




C/3 

G 




x: 

o 

4—* 

o 




c 

c 

. 

■d 


0) 

4—* 


0/ 


X) 

'£ 

X 

o 

o 


3 

-2 

CU 

<u 

— 

C/3 

c 


"O 

'3 ; 

<D 

T3 

o 

4—* 

> 

CS 

o 

d 


o 

(U 

G-* 

o 

Z 

o 

3 

o 

X 

4—* 

<U 

z 

II 

3 

O 

w 

Q 

ii 

Q 

C/2 

C3 

JO 

i 

i 

z 


TCLP = Toxicity characteristic leaching procedure. 
















5.0 


VITRIFICATION FOR ARSENIC 


Model of an In Situ Vitrification System 


Summary 

Vitrification has been applied in a limited number of 
projects to treat arsenic-contaminated soil and waste. 
For soil treatment, the process can be applied either 
in situ or ex situ. This technology typically requires 
large amounts of energy to achieve vitrification 
temperatures, and therefore can be expensive to 
operate. Off-gases may require further treatment to 
remove hazardous constituents. 


Off-Gas Off-Gas 



Technology Description and Principles 

During the vitrification treatment process, the metals 
are surrounded by a glass matrix and become 
chemically bonded inside the matrix. For example, 
arsenates can be converted into silicoarsenates during 
vitrification (Ref. 5.4). 


Technology Description: Vitrification is a high 
temperature treatment aimed at reducing the 
mobility of metals by incorporating them into a 
chemically durable, leach resistant, vitreous mass 
(Ref. 5.6). This process also may cause 
contaminants to volatilize or undergo thermal 
destruction, thereby reducing their concentration in 
the soil or waste. 

Media Treated 

• Soil 

• Waste 

Energy Sources Used for Vitrification: 

• Fossil fuels 

• Direct joule heat 

Energy Delivery Mechanisms Used for 
Vitrification: 

• Arcs 

• Plasma torches 

• Microwaves 

• Electrodes (in situ) 

In Situ Application Depth: 

• Maximum demonstrated depth is 20 feet 

• Depths greater than 20 feet may require 
innovative techniques 


Ex situ processes provide heat to a melter through a 
variety of sources, including combustion of fossil fuels, 
and input of electric energy by direct joule heating. The 
heat may be delivered via arcs, plasma torches, and 
microwaves. In situ vitrification uses resistance heating 
by passing an electric current through soil by means of 
an array of electrodes (Ref. 5.6). In situ vitrification 
can treat up to 1,000 tons of soil in a single melt. 

Vitrification occurs at temperatures from 2,000 to 
3,600°F (Ref. 5.1, 5.4). These high temperatures may 
cause arsenic to volatilize and contaminate the off-gas 
of the vitrification unit. Vitrification units typically 
employ treatment of the off-gas using air pollution 
control devices such as baghouses (Ref. 5.5). 

Pretreatment of the waste to be vitrified may reduce the 
contamination of off-gasses with arsenic. For example, 
in one application (Project 15), prior to vitrification of 
flue dust containing arsenic trioxide (As 2 0 3 ), a mixture 
of the flue dust and lime was roasted at 400 "C to 
convert the more volatile arsenic trioxide to less volatile 
calcium arsenate (Ca 3 (As0 4 ) 2 ) (Ref. 5.5). Solid 
residues from off-gas treatment may be recycled into 
the feed to the vitrification unit (Ref. 5.6). 

The maximum treatment depth for in situ vitrification 
has been demonstrated to be about 20 feet (Ref. 5.6). 
Table 5.1 describes specific vitrification processes used 
to treat soil and wastes containing arsenic. 

Media and Contaminants Treated 

Vitrification has been applied to soil and wastes 
contaminated with arsenic, metals, radionuclides, and 
organics. This method is a RCRA best demonstrated 
available technology (BDAT) for various arsenic- 
containing hazardous wastes, including K.031, K084, 
K101, K102, D004, and arsenic-containing P and U 
wastes (Ref. 5.5, 5.6). 


5-1 































Type, Number, and Scale of Identified Projects 
Treating Soil and Wastes Containing Arsenic 

Vitrification of arsenic-contaminated soil and waste has 
been conducted at both pilot and full scale. The sources 
for this report contained information on ex situ 
vitrification of arsenic-contaminated soil at pilot scale 
at three sites and at full scale at one site. Information 
was also identified for two in situ applications for 
arsenic treatment at full scale. In addition, 7 pilot-scale 
and 3 full-scale applications to industrial waste were 
identified. Figure 5.1 shows the number of applications 
identified at each scale. 

Figure 5.1 

Scale of Identified Vitrification Projects for Arsenic 


Full 


Pilot 


0 5 10 

Summary of Performance Data 

Table 5.1 lists the vitrification performance data 
identified in the sources used for this report. For ex situ 
vitrification of soil, total arsenic concentrations prior to 
treatment ranged from 8.7 to 540 mg/kg (Projects 2 and 
4). Data on the leachability of arsenic from the vitrified 
product were available only for Project 4, for which the 
leachable arsenic concentration was reported as 0.9 
mg/L. For in situ vitrification of soil, total arsenic 
concentrations prior to treatment ranged from 10.1 to 
4,400 mg/kg (Projects 6 and 5, respectively). The 
leachability of arsenic in the stabilized soil and waste 
ranged from <0.004 to 0.91 mg/L (Projects 5 and 6). 

For treatment of industrial wastes, the total arsenic 
concentrations prior to treatment ranged from 27 to 
25,000 mg/kg (Projects 7 and 16) and leachable 
concentrations in the vitrified waste ranged from 0.007 
mg/L to 2.5 mg/L (Projects 15 and 16). For some of the 
projects listed in Table 5.1, the waste treated was 
identified as a spent potliner from primary aluminum 
reduction (RCRA waste code K.088) but the 
concentration of arsenic in the waste was not identified. 
Some K.088 wastes contain relatively low 
concentrations of arsenic, and these projects may 
involve treatment of such wastes. 


Treatment 




6 


10 





The case study in this section discusses in greater detail 
the in situ vitrification of arsenic-contaminated soil at 
the Parsons Chemical Superfund Site. This information 
is summarized in Table 5.1, Project 6. 


Case Study: Parsons Chemical Superfund Site 
Vitrification 

The Parsons Chemical Superfund Site in Grand 
Ledge, Michigan was an agricultural chemical 
manufacturing facility. Full-scale in situ 
vitrification was implemented to treat 3,000 cubic 
yards of arsenic-contaminated soil. Initial arsenic 
concentrations ranged from 8.4 to 10.1 mg/kg. Eight 
separate melts were performed at the site, which 
reduced arsenic concentrations to 0.717 to 5.49 
mg/kg . The concentration of leachable arsenic in 
the treated soils ranged from <0.004 to 0.0305 
mg/L, as measured by the TCLP. The off-gas 
emissions had arsenic concentrations of <0.000269 
mg/m 3 , <0.59 mg/hr (see Table 5.1, Project 6). 


Applicability, Advantages, and Potential Limitations 

Arsenic concentrations present in soil or waste may 
limit the performance of the vitrification treatment 
process. For example, if the arsenic concentration in 
the feed exceeds its solubility in glass, the technology’s 
effectiveness may be limited (Ref. 5.6). Metals retained 
in the melt must be dissolved to minimize the formation 
of crystalline phases that can decrease leach resistance 
of the vitrified product. The approximate solubility of 
arsenic in silicate glass ranges from 1 - 3% by weight 
(Ref. 5.7). 

The presence of chlorides, fluorides, sulfides, and 
sulfates may interfere with the process, resulting in 
higher mobility of arsenic in the vitrified product. 
Feeding additional slag-forming materials such as sand 
to the process may compensate for the presence of 
chlorides, fluorides, sulfides, and sulfates (Ref. 5.4). 
Chlorides, such as those found in chlorinated solvents, 
in excess of 0.5 weight percent in the waste will 
typically fume off and enter the off-gas. Chlorides in 
the off-gas may result in the accumulation of salts of 
alkali, alkaline earth, and heavy metals in the solid 
residues collected by off-gas treatment. If the residue is 
returned to the process for treatment, separation of the 
chloride salts from the residue may be necessary. When 
excess chlorides are present, dioxins and furans may 
also form and enter the off-gas treatment system (Ref. 
5.6). The presence of these constituents may also lead 
to the formation of volatile metal species or corrosive 
acids in the off-gas (Ref. 5.7). 


5-2 












During vitrification, combustion of the organic content 
of the waste liberates heat, which will raise the 
temperature of the waste, thus reducing the external 
energy requirements. Therefore, this process may be 
advantageous to wastes containing a combination of 
arsenic and organic contaminants or for the treatment of 
organo-arsenic compounds. However, high 


Factors Affecting Vitrification Performance 

• Presence of halogenated organic compounds - 

The combustion of halogenated organic 
compounds may result in incomplete combustion 
and the deposition of chlorides, which can result 
in higher mobility of arsenic in the vitrified 
product (Ref. 5.4). 

• Presence of volatile metals - The presence of 
volatile metals, such as mercury and cadmium, 
and other volatile inorganics, such as arsenic, 
may require treatment of the off-gas to reduce air 
emissions of hazardous constituents (Ref. 5.6). 

• Particle size - Some vitrification units require 
that the particle size of the feed be controlled. 

For wastes containing refractory compounds that 
melt above the unit's nominal processing 
temperature, such as quartz and alumina, size 
reduction may be required to achieve acceptable 
throughputs and a homogeneous melt. High- 
temperature processes, such as arcing and 
plasma processes may not require size reduction 
of the feed (Ref. 5.6). 

• Lack of glass-forming materials - If 
insufficient glass-forming materials (Si0 2 >30% 
by weight) and combined alkali (Na + K > 1.4% 
by weight) are present in the waste the vitrified 
product may be less durable. The addition of frit 
or flux additives may compensate for the lack of 
glass-forming and alkali materials (Ref. 5.6). 

• Subsurface air pockets - For in situ 
vitrification, subsurface air pockets, such as 
those that may be associated with buried drums, 
can cause bubbling and splattering of molten 
material, resulting in a safety hazard (Ref. 5.10). 

• Metals content - For in situ vitrification, a 
metals content greater than 15% by weight may 
result in pooling of molten metals at the bottom 
of the melt, resulting in electrical short-circuiting 
(Ref. 5.10). 

• Organic content - For in situ vitrification, an 
organic content of greater than 10% by weight 
may cause excessive heating of the melt, 
resulting in damage to the treatment equipment 
(Ref. 5.10). High organics concentrations may 
also cause large volumes of off-gas as the 
organics volatilize and combust, and may 
overwhelm air emissions control systems. 


concentrations of organics and moisture may result in 
high volumes of off-gas as organics volatilize and 
combust and water turns to steam. This can overwhelm 
emissions control systems. 

Vitrification can also increase the density of treated 
material, thereby reducing its volume. In some cases, 
the vitrified product can be reused or sold. Vitrified 
wastes containing arsenic have been reused as industrial 
glass (Ref. 5.5). Metals retained in the melt that do not 
dissolve in the glass phase can form crystalline phases 
upon cooling that can decrease the leach resistance of 
the vitrified product. 

Excavation of soil is not required for in situ 
vitrification. This technology has been demonstrated to 
a depth of 20 feet. Contamination present at greater 
depths may require innovative application techniques. 

In situ vitrification may be impeded by the presence of 
subsurface air pockets, high metals concentrations, and 
high organics concentrations (Ref. 5.10). 


Factors Affecting Vitrification Costs 

• Moisture content - Greater than 5% moisture 
in the waste may result in greater mobility of 
arsenic in the final treated matrix. These 
wastes may require drying prior to vitrification 
(Ref. 5.4). Wastes containing greater than 25% 
moisture content may require excessive fuel 
consumption or dewatering before treatment 
(Ref. 5.6). 

• Characteristics of treated waste - Depending 
upon the qualities of the vitrified waste, the 
treated soil and waste may be able to be reused 
or sold. 

• Factors affecting vitrification performance - 

Items in the “Factors Affecting Vitrification 
Performance” box will also affect costs. 


Summary of Cost Data 

Cost information for ex situ vitrification of soil and 
wastes containing arsenic was not found in the 
references identified for this report. The cost for in situ 
vitrification of 3,000 cubic yards of soil containing 
arsenic, mercury, lead, DDT, dieldrin and chlordane at 
the Parsons Chemical Superfund site are presented 
below (Ref. 5.8, cost year not provided): 

• Treatability/pilot testing $50,000 - $ 150,000 

• Mobilization $150,000 - $200,000 

• Vitrification operation $375 - $425/ ton 

• Demobilization $150,000 - $200,000 


5-3 






References 


5.1. TIO. Database for EPA REACH IT (Remediation 
And Characterization Innovative Technologies). 
March 2001. http://www.epareachit.org. 

5.2. U.S. EPA. Arsenic & Mercury - Workshop on 
Removal, Recovery, Treatment, and Disposal. 
Office of Research and Development. EPA-600- 
R-92-105. August 1992. 

5.3. U.S. EPA. BDAT Background Document for 
Spent Potliners from Primary Aluminum 
Reduction - K088. Office of Solid Waste. 
February 1996. 

http://yosemite 1 .epa.gov/EE/epa/ria.nsf/ 
ca2fb654a3ebbce28525648IO07b8c26/22bebe 132 
177e059852567e8006919c3?OpenDocument 

5.4. U.S. EPA. Best Demonstrated Available 
Technology (BDAT) Background Document for 
Wood Preserving Wastes: F032, F034, and F035; 
Final. April 1996. 

http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/ldr/ 
wood/bdat bd.pdf 

5.5. U.S. EPA. Final Best Demonstrated Available 
Technology (BDAT) Background Document for 
K031, K084, K101, K102, Characteristic Arsenic 
Wastes (D004), Characteristic Selenium Wastes 
(DO 10), and P and U Wastes Containing Arsenic 
and Selenium Listing Constituents. Office of 
Solid Waste. May 1990. 

5.6. U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development. 
Engineering Bulletin, Technology Alternatives for 
the Remediation of Soils Contaminated with 
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Mercury, and 
Lead. Cincinnati, OH. March 1997. 
http://www.epa.gov/ncepi/Catalog/ 
EPA540S97500.html 

5.7. U.S. EPA. Contaminants and Remedial Options at 
Selected Metal-Contaminated Sites. Office of 
Research and Development. EPA-540-R-95-512. 
July 1995. 

http://www.epa.gov/ncepi/Catalog/ 

EPA540R95512.html 

5.8. Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable 
(FRTR). In Situ Vitrification at the Parsons 
Chemical/ETM Enterprises Superfund Site Grand 
Ledge, Michigan. 
http://www.frtr.gov/costperf.htm. 

5.9. FRTR. In Situ Vitrification, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Hanford Site, Richland, Washington; Oak 
Ridge National Laboratory WAG 7; and Various 
Commercial Sites. 
http://www.frtr.gov/costperf.htm. 

5.10 U.S. EPA. SITE Technology Capsule, Geosafe 
Corporation In Situ Vitrification Technology. 
Office of Research and Development. EPA 
540/R-94/520a. November 1994. 
http://www.epa.gov/ORD/SITE/reports/ 
540_r-94_520a.pdf. 


5-4 


Table 5.1 

Vitrification Treatment Performance Data for Arsenic 


<j 

L. 

3 

O 

c r> 


VI 

VI 

<u 

o 

O e 

5- X 

o- .2 

C Q. 

.2 ‘Z 

x ° 

55 c/1 

CJ O 

E a 

u 


■c 

C 

3 

+- « 5 

3 = *2 

■a £ « 

O 

£ < e 

-e « 2 

a> c 5 
E u. (j 


2 = 

S .2 

2s 55 

i- 

< 3 

— « 

•■C 3 

E o 


o 

11 

« S3 

Z « 
£ 


jl 

3 

u 

C/3 


L. 

° 

.2 » 

■a g 


O 41 

i» X 

o 9 E 
£ Z 


3 

O 

’> 

8 

U 


a> 


00 

_3 



d 

L. 

O O 

£ Z 

.2 

E 

i 

0 ) 

t-H 

•S H 

a> 

O 

3 

s 

cd 

■0 

MM 

•*—* 

3 

3 

■fa- 

3 

a> 

s 


a> 

P 



>n 


C3 

3 

o 

4-* 

cd 

O 

E u 

l* o 
.-3 O 
> «n 

c "“i. 

15 

b 

2 

o 

at 


aj 

> 

C3 

iL 

00 

"S 

o 

X 

ts 

< 


00 

~ob < 

E £ 

r-~ H 




— 3 co 

s'5'2 

— (D 5 

u- 3 


3 

3 

O 

a> 


<u 


8 > |> 
w m z 


_o 

CL 


0 

-3 

3 -2 

>_ 5/3 
a> s- 

> o 

(5 E 

3 

-3 


<U 

E 


>n 


"2 - 
§ g 

00 E 
c « 

E E 
•E d 
00 a. 

00 g> 
_B .3 
'n ^ 
"C 3 

c/3 


3 <-> 

1 © 

2 § 

o E 

E ” 

£ 03 

’> _B 

X ^ 
T3 

Sf 3 

1 s 

2 “ 


o 

o ^ 

_r cl 

o X 

£ ^ 
&>b 
x 
'00 


2 

a 

13 


00 

'E 

00 ^ 

E < 

£ 
H 


(N 


OO 


C3 

N 

3 

cd 

■4—* 

03 


2 at 


x 

u 

w 

+-• 

E 

3 

o 


C3 
3 

■4—* 

3 
<U 
00 
Lh 

< 

00 

<D 

00 .E 


CO 

O 

3 

0 ) 

3 

m 


< 


< 


_o 

CL 


E — r 4» 
0 o 

S “ 3 

,x 15 -p 

*> o £ 

CO 3 


~a 

3 

03 

X 

"3 


CO 

3 

T3 

3 


Cn| 


in 


~o 

<u 

x 


*0 

,<U 03 

M —1 

_. 00 
“ r“ 
3 .3 
03 _C 

<u ’3 

3 


3 O 


E 

<u 

c3 

CO 

(L> 

4—t 

CO 

3 


3 

O 

o 

u 

o 

3 


-O C 

5 ^ 


cd 

TD 

£ 0 

C/5 


sg 

00 <n 

3 ^2 

(U 

±3 

O ro 

3 T3 

l -4 SJ 

= | 

O C 

o ■- 


3 Q, 


E - 

5 3 

2 £ <& 

__. 13 <L> 

■ago 

g j?-3 

E § ! 

<U o. 
u 0^ O 
.2 o 

co B aj 

CO L. — 

3 0 0 
“SO 
O o 
X3 


3 — 

e a 


,3 

C^- 

co 

co 

3 

a 


4 -; -o 4 X 
_ C/3 B S 

S ^ 3 a) -a 

3 -p E ^ c 

jo E « 3 

3 H 

-c >4 CE 

Q2> 


00 

3 

tu 


3 

tL 


co 

3 

O 

4—4 

o 

o 

3- 


O 

C/3 


m 


<N 

in 


co 

3 
X) 
O P 
& r O 
o U 

J 73 
<L> 
O 
3 
3 
> 
•a 

< 


3 


o 

<D 

O 

> 


L. O 
<U 4-4 
4-4 co 
3 3 
3 X 
O 3 
O 

E 0 

(D 4>^ 

S <u 

>4 ^ 

c* o 

C/3 > 

00 

.S c 

X *3 
« 2 
^ o 


(U 

4—4 

<u 

E -g 

2 G 

4 — ^ 

O 3 

o CP 

>4 t- 

O O 

4—4 

>> 3 
X ^ 
T3 -q 

> s 

5 3 

o 

I 


t-J 

'00 

E 

ON ^ 
O CL 

4-> X 

2 U 

3 b 

o w 

CO 

co 

j 2 

O 


00 

'00 <! 

E £ 
o H 
m 


l-4 

o 


o 

> 

’S 

D 


X r- 

003 r 4 

E .5 E b 

cd ■*-* 
X D. 1 > 3 
i2 a. 2 

E<^u 


< 

CL 

<U 


o 

Cl 


o 

C/3 


>n 

»n 


O "O 

o o 

(N C _ 
— 'o o 
■3 0 ij 

01 a c 

5 3 0 
.2 3 0 
C 

3 E .0 
E '$ 3 ' 
u o 

^ co P. 
3 JO 1 - 
cU • — 

* T7\ ^ ^ 

00 00 

3 O 

x -a 


CL 

X 

u 

H 


00 

E 

os 

d 


00 

x 

E ^ 
0 £- 
° b 

7}- W 


3 

X 


0 



-0 

I-I 

C/3 

0 

O 

D 

0 

X 

■*—» 

C/3 

<u 

4—* 

O 

cd 

to 

"O 

3 

3 

<u 

£ 

3 

E 

<< 

— 

0 

s 

m 

-3 

DC 

0 

C/3 

u 

at. 

>4 

a> 

Qh 


m 


m 

1 

in 

























Table 5.1 

Vitrification Treatment Performance Data for Arsenic (continued) 


p 

p 

3 

c 

C/3 


CO 

CO 

p 

p 

O c 

u. 5 

a- .2 
= o. 
.2 Z 

* w 

w CO 

P p 

E o 

u 


■O 

s 

3 

P 3 
P © 

3 g *43 

■a & * 

C s_ i 

£ < = 

■o « 2 
p s 5 

=g U 


« s 

e .2 

4* +- 
co OS 

J- i_ 

< c 

— p 

W p 

•-C c 

£ 2 


O 

p 5 
E * 

OS C3 

^ o 

55 


_o 

« 

p 

t/3 


s- 

o 


4 


.2 * 

■o * 

£ £ 


QJ 

•+•* 

& 

Lm 

© P 

>» 0“ 
- Z» 
•*“' r“ 

co 

3 

■c 

C 


I— 

o a* 

p -Q 

'c 5 E 
> s 
^ Z 


oc 

*/S 


so 

X 03 
cp 60 o 
"p x '£ 

C 2 CO 

.2 55 ' 


Cd 

p CO 


03 

P- 

O 


p E 

,-b £ § 

> « '% 

3 


u. 

P 

a. 

CO On E 

E ^ O 
?3 o X 
S)V u 

„ P 

—; 1- Q. 

1 3 CO 
E £ E 

O' c B 
p 


NO 
rsi • 


60 


ca 

."3 *- 

"co 5 

_ o. 

C p 

— <S1 


c -£ E 

O 3 •- 

o O £ 

o 

V 


j^p Si) 

\ p 
60 3 

E 

ON <£ ^ 

"cf •> o -j 
>n £ o' y 

. b - t 

t-" 'Cj- 

— o 
r- o 

© o 

V 


60 

X 

'So 

E 




i 

oc 


CO 


p" 

■*—» 

.. a ’<*> 

C P ^3 
O '£ c 
S2 ^ ,3 

Q- M u 
U a. 

3 

C/0 


3 X 


/"s C/5 

I - 

O cd 
m' ^ 
— .2 

'o -2 
co g 


60 

g co .E 

— u. 
3 03 3 

" o •- 

3 E <g 
- c 2 3 

60 "E G 

< 5 


NO 


4 

•W 

1/3 

»■ 

•*— 

^5 

3 

■o 

3 


<N 


c .2 
.2 tS 

3 

Xl 

E 
o 
U 
-a 

<L» 
O 

c 

C3 
> 
-3 

< 


U 

— — -*-J• 

C d ^ —— 


c3 

u. 

O 

B- 

o 

U 

o 

ao 

C 

o 

> 


o 
-^* 
co 

C 3 
3 X 

° E 
° o 
o 


u 

G 

O 


E u — 

x P 

a S 

o 

^ > 

60 do 

•- .E 

5 3s 

5 : o 


o 
c 

<D 

3 

O O’ 

C— 

o <u 
+-* 
>. 03 
X ^ 

■3 -o 

> c 

^ 03 

O 


60 


IS 

«3 U 
St 

o 

C/3 

C/3 

C3 


o 


< 

H 

60 

x: 

'So 

E 

<N 


< 

cu 


o> — 


c+- 

O 

>, 60 "O -E 
j; u u 

CO 5 X C3 — : - 

§ •§ a si g g 

.£ .S < 2 u g 

C Q. 2- = 

[ZD 03 

X 


_o 

'£ 


o 
■*—* 
cd 

U* r- 

C/3 

.S 03 

*0 

c 


cd 

i- 

O 

•>—> 

cd 

u- 

<u 

C 


cS 

D 

CO 

03 


P <U 
O J2 X) 

— "o ■§ 

1 

co 


r- 


(N 


03 


co 

3 
X 

0 E 
& § 
o U 


U 

o 

p 

ts 

o 

> 


o 

p *-> 

*2 co 

C 3 
3 X 

0 E 

° O 

E 0 

X P 
■p* o 
00 

.5 G 
p « 

^ p 


p 

p 

E p 

3 g 
P 3 
73 cr 

r^~\ •— 

o P 

>. 03 

X ^ 

"O -Q 

> = 

> 03 

P 


~So 

E 

m 

o ^ 

O Q- 
V J 
CD 
= H 
3 w 

p 

co 

co 

03 

a 


60 

60 < 

E ^ 

— E— 

oc ^ 

ON 


c_ 

p 


< 

cu 

>-, 60 "O -E ' 4) 

£ .2 E g = 

c/3 — cd w * r* 

-o a. P c > 

2 co 0 . co p 3 

•E £ < cS U I 
D n 

X 


_p 

'<£ 


X 

co 

C3 

PU 


E 

p 


p 


co 

03 


P £ 


g -a 
^ p x 
co X O 

P 03 co 

3 p __ 

"p 2 
c^» •— .hr 
CJ P o 
C2 .5 •£ 

3 

£ 


oc 


cs 

sri 


c 

c .2 

2 « 
3 
x 

p £ 

& 5 
o U 
~o 

p 
p 
G 
03 
> 
X) 

< 


03 


u 

p 

p 

•d 

p 

> 


I “ 

p p 

p ■— 

X CO 

C 3 
3 X 
P P 
P 

E b "o 

2 p ' 
p 

2 P 60 

.E c 

X ‘p 

p 3 

^ P 


t_ 

P 

-*-» 

P 

£ -5 
2 c 

C p 
P 3 
P CT 
^ “ 
P P 

03 

X ^ 

"O -n 

> = 

$ 03 

_P 

| 


"So 

£ 

CN 

o _ 

O Cl 
V X 

*-> Ci 

= H 

3 ^ 

p 

co 

co 

3 

a 


0 X 

>, 60 -O -E 
X fa p 2 
co E X 03 

■ I x < - U 
3 


< 

Cu 

uT «" 

P — 


03 

DC 


_P 

CL 


co 

co 3 

3 ~o 

-§ ^ 
c. s« 

03 3 

N P 
3 X 

■r 

x 


ON 


rn 

sri 


P 

60 "5 
.£ c 
<0 sq e: 

co 3 T3 
P hn P 
P °P 60 
O c 1 - 
s- X P 
Cl 03 G 

X .g X 

> p s 

cd 2 

H 5 P 

p 2 -p 

E- .2 2 

C/3 •*-» 

<D O 

13 


C/3 

C/3 

cd O 

64) C 

S -o 

4 ^ a> 

o S *2 

E o 3 

^ ^C— "O 

| .2 2 

cd rv 

£ c 
c g 

X E 
O P 

E 


co 

CO 

cd 

60 

C 

P 


3 ^ 

■2 1 S . 
-is 

o _2 


E 

03 

CQ 


’> p 

w 5 


3 

X 


4—* 

*N C 
U- O 

s- 

3 

C 

(U ^ 

P 

P 

c 0 

>% 

X 

— 0 

u. 

00 

0 E 

Cl O 

P 

Cl 


r<~i 


























Table 5.1 

Vitrification Treatment Performance Data for Arsenic (continued) 


<u 

l 

3 

© 

0 /) 


rn 


rn 

on 


rn 

03 


rn 

03 


c/3 

C/3 

© 

o 

© - 
v- E 
a. .2 

= a 

.2 u 

<J © 

1 = Q 
u 


-C r— 

ti g 

> a> 

^ n 

C/5 

O § N 
i- t- 


o 

l- 
0.4h 
OX) 
c C 

5b .2 

OX) ,-t; 

_2 T3 

on "2 

C3 


C3 


O CT 


ctf C3 

.2 c 

OX) •- 

-2 

"3 y 

2 "a 

E § 
y o 


05 

C/5 

<D 

O 

o 


0 ) — 

£ 3 

-a « 
2 -o 
^ § 


£ 

3 


3 

aj s- 
t/3 1) 

3 C 

B E 

gP-g 


<u 


<L> 


'Vo 

c 5 
o £ 


O 
3 
— 
-i—• 

X 

w 


cl, -c 


— 3 

<5 <-> 

« O 

3 .C 

'n 


03 


c .is 

03 OX) 

•g’B. 

i i 


C/5 

C/5 ^ 

-2 ^ 

tlO C/5 

4-» 

TD C 

G <D 

03 -5 
S2 22 

.£ .c 

CL .£ 

C P 

<u n 

CLc2 

on 


-C o 

.2P ts 

CS 3 

I X 

.£ E 

c ° 

3 ° 

3 3 

■E o 
-a 'm 
<u s 
os 2 
■C £- 

•C = 

> 03 


0) OX) 

3 C 
O *S 

O 13 

On 3 
o *■* l. 
_. "a i> 
M c X) 
>? 3 £ 

-a § -= 
« os ° 

£ CO 

<2 ^ 

0- yj 


-o 

<u 

-o 

3 

<u 


1 ) 


<D 
M 

cs 

T3 
C 
03 

.G ^ 

*5 C 
o > 

o 

3 _c 

<L> _ 

cl ^ 

C/) 3 

3 


-X 

CO 

o 

l_ 

CO 

O 

33 

,<D 

0—i 

33 

3 

cO 


3 

3 

3 

_o 

'3 

CO 

o 

t3 


TS 

3 

a 

<j E 

o •— © 

3 g *3 
■g "2 

© 5- i 

i < = 

os so y 

© c 5 
= u. u 


OX) 

3 

on 


o 

o 

£ 

OX) 

3 

on 


c n 

05 

_3 

OX) 

13 


C/5 

3 

-o 

3 


3 O 

<U r- 

0 ) 

3 

Srt "O 

s « 

C/3 

a> o 
3 a. 
~0 .22 
c« "O 
0 ) 

T3 


« c 

5 .2 

S t3 

U 

< = 
ns « 

3 cj 

■-C c 

5 u 


s- 

© 

« § 

E *2 

05 3 

Z ° 
S J 


(O 


60 >, 

O co 


o ^ 

s 11 

<L> ^ 

H 


<U P 
O > 3 
3 3 0 


(U O 


o 

C/3 


O 


OX) 


c ,c 
o 4° IE 
> V « 

= u ^ 
UJ C 


3 

O 

2 03 
3 — 

C o 

O & 
o 
U 


C/3 

T3 


03 


a> 


O 3 
3 

>3 

<D 


_o 

"rt 

o 

C/3 


_o 

CL 


_o 

s 


_o 

CL 


3 

Cl 


L 

° 4» 

.2 tS 


<u 

a. 


o 
o 

CM 

3 03- g | 

g. S3 ^ § 

r- »-h 

on .5 1 ox) 

ns o 
o ~ 

D. 


3 g 

o .E 
cl ns 
C/3 o 
Cl 


03 

^ L— 

c g 

ax .5 

CL — 

on o 

CL 


3 g 
U 

CL^ 

on o 

CL 


© 

L-i 

on 

O 5) 
CL 

3 

■o 

C 


0 ) 

E < "o 
E oc ° 
|u B 


&‘o 

3 3 T3 

'C <u 5 

cu ^ g 

-3 


3 OC 

^ oo 


o 

§ ^ 
o 


E 

3 

3 

E 

_3 

3 


< 

OL 

U 

OC 


3 

^•2 

£ 3 

E ^3 

l_ <D 

Cl >- 


(U o 
T3 L- 

o 

CJ O 

<u '£ 
. » •*—■* 
C/5 O 

3 _y 
^ <u 

03 "O 

3 3 
O 3 
33 

b oo 

S OO 

S s 

-3 Ct 


03 

3 

33 

<u 

O 

3 


0 / 

33 

O 

o 

<u 

03 

3 LO 

3 ^ 

o 

33 

L. 

3 

N 

3 

— 


£ 

3 

•| o 

1 “ 

3 C 

b-B 

p 3 -P 

E 33 b 

£ ^ I 

J3 


<u 

33 

O 

O 

<u 

03 

3 OO 

* § 
3 LC 
o 


E 

3 

C 

E 

_3 

3 


C 

&B 

cj y 

.1 B 

C u 

Cl >- 


(U 

33 

O 

o 

D 

-4-* 

03 

3 OO 
^ OO 


03 

3 

O 

33 

L. 

3 

N 

3 


O 


T\ <u 

O X 

•o’ E 


(N 


m 


C" 

■ 

0^1 















Table 5.1 

Vitrification Treatment Performance Data for Arsenic (continued) 


at 

o 

•— 

3 

O 

C/5 


in 

in 


in 

1/5 




& 

C/3 

d 

d 

o 

im 



C/5 



c 

4—' 


0) 

X 

<D 

O 

cd 


<u 

u. 

_o 

■4—* 

C3 


00 

3 

0/j 

a> 

u- 

•4—* 

C 

03 

o 

cd 

C/5 

_o 

~o 

_o 

C/5 

£ 

D 

# Q- 

% z 

o 

o 

'It 

c 

0/ 

C/5 

L* 

c3 

E 

t-H 

-4—* 

> 

-4—> 

03 

O 

D 

C/3 

ai 

a 

C3 

t; 

3 

'o 

X 

'35 

C 

00 

c 

<u 

> 

03 

O 

T3 

<U 

C 

O 


C/5 

cd 

o 

c 

o 

D 

o 

■4—» 

_o 

c 

cd 



o 

-4—» 


£ 



u 

c/3 

<u 

<L> 

l 

00 

D 


<N 


■o 

3 

« r- 

+* D ^ 

O *3 © 
3 £ *3 

■0^3 

o s- i 

i < c 

■n « a 

a> c c 

>” C 

r ^ u 


00 

X 

'oo 

E 


CL 

X 

U 

f— 


o ^ 

O 5 60 

«n r ^ E 


o 

o 

© 

m 


o 

o 



3 

3 

_o 

D 

4— 


3 



< 

•*— 

c 

«—« 

QJ 

3 

O 


3 

c 

1— 

C 

u 

u 


o 


a> 

E 

3 

u» 

3 

3 

z 

C 

o 

4-4 


C/5 



O Cu 

£ H 

Bh 


x 

'5b 

E 

in 

© 

I 

in 

© 

V 


X 

~5b 

E 

•n 

<N 

>n 

© 

V 


o 

o 

o 

in 


< 

- . ^ 

CN £-> 


o 

o 

o 

© 

CN 


00 

X 

^b 

E 


o 

c 

_1> 

3 

O 

a. 

D 

C 

o 

X 


_© 

3 

o 

C/5 


3 

Uh 


_o 

i£ 


L 

® © 

.2 "S 

•a w 


C/3 

3 

-a 

0) 

3 


aj 

<u .5 — 

oo c ^ 

-3 

3 c_) 


J3 

C/5 


C 

O 

o 


c 

<u 

C/3 

•— 

3 


a> 

*» 

33 

o a» 

x. ^ 

i H 

<*> 

3 

-o 

3 


o 

a> 

C/3 


OJ 

2 a _ 

.y „ « ti- 

c £ o 

O „ © 

■c §Q 

£ O 

I - 

O 3 
b N 
U- 


o 

X - 

a. 

C/3 

O 


4- 

D X 

•o’ E 
»- 3 
^ Z 






C/5 

c 

e O 

■ 4 —» 

CJ 

Cd 

i- 
•*—* 
X 
<D 

<D 

■4—i> 

C/5 

Cd 

£ 

ii 

H 

W 

£ 


<u 

— 

3 

-a 

a> 

o 

o 

I— 

CL 

00 

d 


o 

3 

D 

O 



C/3 

C/3 


’C5 

C« 


(L> 



CJ 

3 


3 

Vh 

3 

C 

3 


X 

a/ 


D 

•i—t 


>3 

C/3 

3 

X) 

-*-C 

£ 

jd 

'3 


cd 

'x 

"3 

-4—* 

> 

o 

o 

03 

H 

H 

-4—» 

o 

II 

II 

z 

D- 

X 

U 

< 

II 


1 

1 

f— 

H 


c 

<u 


3 

D 


D 

3 

O 

C/3 

I 


CJ 

c 

0) 

X 

00 

.3 

-a 

_3 

D 

X 

X 


C/3 

3 


C/3 


a> 

U 

II 


3 CJ 


C/3 

<L» 


<J 

‘x 

o 

+-* 

<u 

— 

3 

-a 

0J 

a 

o 

!— 

CL 

C 

_o 
.—> 
D 
3 
•— 
•*—» 
X 
LU 


H 

c_ 

UJ 













6.0 SOIL WASHING/ACID EXTRACTION 
FOR ARSENIC 


Technology Description and Principles 

Soil washing uses particle size separation to reduce soil 
contaminant concentrations. This process is based on 
the concept that most contaminants tend to bind to the 
finer soil particles (clay, silt) rather than the larger 
particles (sand, gravel). Because the finer particles are 
attached to larger particles through physical processes 
(compaction and adhesion), physical methods can be 
used to separate the relatively clean larger particles 
from the finer particles, thus concentrating the 
contamination bound to the finer particles for further 
treatment (Ref. 6.7). 

In this process, soil is first screened to remove 
oversized particles, and then homogenized. The soil is 
then mixed with a wash solution consisting of water or 
water enhanced with chemical additives such as 
leaching agents, surfactants, acids, or chelating agents 
to help remove organics and heavy metals. The 
particles are separated by size (cyclone and/or gravity 
separation depending on the type of contaminants in the 
soil and particle size), concentrating the contaminants 
with the fines. Because the soil washing process 
removes and concentrates the contaminants but does not 
destroy them, the resulting concentrated fines or sludge 
usually require further treatment. The coarser-grained 
soil is generally relatively “clean”, requiring no 


0 12 3 4 


Technology Description: Soil washing is an ex 
situ technology that takes advantage of the behavior 
of some contaminants to preferentially adsorb onto 
the fines fraction. The soil is suspended in a wash 
solution and the fines are separated from the 
suspension, thereby reducing the contaminant 
concentration in the remaining soil. 

Media Treated: 

• Soil (ex situ) 


Summary 

Soil washing/acid extraction (soil washing) has been 
used to treat arsenic-contaminated soil in a limited 
number of applications. The process is limited to 
soils in which contaminants are preferentially 
adsorbed onto the fines fraction. The separated 
fines must be further treated to remove or 
immobilize arsenic. 


Model of Soil Washing System 



additional treatment. Wash water from the process is 
treated and either reused in the process, or disposed 
(Ref. 6.7). Commonly used methods for treating the 
wastewater include ion exchange and solvent 
extraction. 

Media and Contaminants Treated 

Soil washing is suitable for use on soils contaminated 
with SVOCs, fuels, heavy metals, pesticides, and some 
VOCs, and works best on homogenous, relatively 
simple contaminant mixtures (Ref. 6.1, 6.4, 6.7). Soil 
washing has been used to treat soils contaminated with 
arsenic. 

Type, Number, and Scale of Identified Projects 
Treating Soil and Wastes Containing Arsenic 

Nine projects were identified where soil washing was 
performed to treat arsenic. Of these, four were 
performed at full scale, including two at Superfund 
sites. Three projects were conducted at pilot scale, and 
two at bench scale (Ref. 6.4). Figure 6.1 shows the 
number of arsenic soil washing projects at bench, pilot, 
and full scale. 


Figure 6.1 

Scale of Identified Soil Washing/Acid Extraction 
Projects for Arsenic Treatment 



6-1 









































Case Study: King of Prussia Superfund Site 

The King of Prussia Superfund Site in Winslow 
Township, New Jersey is a former waste processing 
and recycling facility. Soils were contaminated with 
arsenic, berylllium, cadmium, chromium, copper, 
lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, and zinc 
from the improper disposal of wastes (Project 1). 
Approximately 12,800 cubic yards of arsenic- 
contaminated soil, sludge, and sediment was treated 
using soil washing in 1993. The treatment reduced 
arsenic concentrations from 1 mg/kg to 0.31 mg/kg, 
a reduction of 69%. 


Summary of Performance Data 

Table 6.1. lists the available performance data. For soil 
and waste, this report focuses on performance data 
expressed as the leachability of arsenic in the treated 
material. However, arsenic leachability data are not 
available for any of the projects in Table 6.1. The case 
study in this section discusses in greater detail the soil 
washing to treat arsenic at the King of Prussia 
Superfund Site. This information is summarized in 
Table 6.1, Project 1. 

Applicability, Advantages, and Potential Limitations 

The principal advantage of soil washing is that it can be 
used to reduce the volume of material requiring further 
treatment (Ref. 6.3). However, this technology is 
generally limited to soils with a range of particle size 
distributions, and contaminants that preferentially 
adsorb onto the fines fraction. 

Summary of Cost Data 

Table 6.1. shows the reported costs for soil washing to 
treat arsenic. The unit costs range from $30 to $400 per 


Factors Affecting Soil Washing Costs 

• Soil particle size distribution - Soils with a 
high proportion of fines may require disposal 
of a larger amount of treatment residual. 

• Residuals management - Residuals from soil 
washing, including spent washing solution and 
removed fines, may require additional 
treatment prior to disposal. 

• Factors affecting soil washing performance - 
Items in the “Factors Affecting Soil Washing 
Performance” box will also affect costs. 


Factors Affecting Soil Washing Performance 

• Soil homogeneity - Soils that vary widely and 
frequently in characteristics such as soil type, 
contaminant type and concentration, and where 
blending for homogeneity is not feasible, may 
not be suitable for soil washing (Ref. 6.1). 

• Multiple contaminants - Complex, 
heterogeneous contaminant compositions can 
make it difficult to formulate a simple washing 
solution, requiring the use of multiple, 
sequential washing processes to remove 
contaminants (Ref. 6.1). 

• Moisture content - The moisture content of the 
soil may render its handling more difficult. 
Moisture content may be controlled by covering 
the excavation, storage, and treatment areas to 
reduce the amount of moisture in the soil (Ref. 
6 . 1 ). 

• Temperature - Cold weather can cause the 
washing solution to freeze and can affect 
leaching rates (Ref. 6.1). 


ton of material treated (costs not adjusted to a consistent 
cost year). For one project treating 19,200 tons of soil, 
sludge, and sediment (Table 6.1, Project 1), the total 
reported treatment costs, including off-site disposal of 
treatment residuals, was $7.7 million, or $400/ton (Ref. 
6.6, 6.8, cost year not provided). 

References 

6.1. U.S. EPA. Engineering Bulletin. Technology 
Alternatives for the Remediation of Soils 
Contaminated with Arsenic, Cadmium, 

Chromium, Mercury, and Lead. Office of 
Emergency and Remedial Response. 540-S-97- 
500. March 1997. 
http://www.epa.gov/ncepi/Catalog/ 
EPA540S97500.html 

6.2. U.S. EPA. A Citizen’s Guide to Soil Washing. 
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. 
EPA 542-F-96-002. April 1996. 
http://www.epa.gov/tio/download/remed/ 
soilwash.pdf. 

6.3. U.S. EPA. Treatment Technology Performance 
and Cost Data for Remediation of Wood 
Preserving Sites. Office of Research and 
Development. EPA-625-R-97-009. October 
1997. 

http://www.epa.gov/ncepi/Catalog/ 

EPA625R97009.html 

6.4. U.S. EPA. Treatment Technologies for Site 
Cleanup: Annual Status Report (Tenth Edition). 


6-2 








Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. 
EPA-542-R-01 -004. February 2001. 
http://clu-in.org/asr. 

6.5. U.S. EPA. Database for EPA REACH IT 
(REmediation And CHaracterization Innovative 
Technologies). March 2001. 
http://www.epareachit.org. 

6.6. U.S. EPA. Contaminants and Remedial Options 
at Selected Metal-Contaminated Sites. Office of 
Research and Development. EPA-540-R-95-512. 
July 1995. 

6.7. Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable: 
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and 
Reference Guide Version 3.0. November 2000. 
http://www.frtr.gov/matrix2/top_page.html. 

6.8. Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable 
(FRTR). Soil Washing at the King of Prussia 
Technical Corporation Superfund Site. 
http://www.frtr.gov/costperf.htm. 


6-3 


Table 6.1 

Arsenic Soil Washing Treatment Cost and Performance Data for Arsenic 


Source 

oo 

VO 

6.4 

6.5 

6.6 

6.5 

6.5 

6.5 

6.5 

6.3 

C © 

^ s 

$400 

| 

I 

l 

$100 - 

$300 

$65 

$80 

I 

I 

I 

I 

j 

Soil Washing Agent or 
Process 

Screening, separation, and 
froth flotation 

l 

l 

I 

l 

I 

I 

I 

I 

l 

I 

I 

I 

l 

I 

s 

Final Arsenic 
Concentration 

0.31 mg/kg 
(TWA) 

I 

I 

20 mg/kg (TWA) 

20 mg/kg (TWA) 

6.6 - 142 mg/kg 

(TWA) 

0.61 -3.1 

(mg/kg) 

I 

l 

3 mg/kg (TWA) 

0.015 mg/kg 

(TWA) 

Initial Arsenic 
Concentration 

1 mg/kg (TWA) 

I 

l 

15 - 455 mg/kg 
(TWA) 

250 mg/kg 
(TWA) 

97 - 227 mg/kg 
(TWA) 

2-129 mg/kg 
(TWA) 

I 

I 

4.5 mg/kg 

(TWA) 

9.1 mg/kg 

(TWA) 

Site Name or 
Location 

King of Prussia 
Superfund Site, 
Winslow Township, 
NJ 

Vineland Chemical 
Company Superfund 
Site, Operable Unit 01 
Vineland, NJ 

Ter Apel, Moerdijk, 
Netherlands 

l 

l 

I 

i 

l 

I 

i 

I 

Camp Pendleton 
Marine Corps Base 
Superfund Site, CA 

Thunder Bay, 
Ontario, Canada 

Scale 

Full 

Full 

Full 

Full 

Pilot 

Pilot 

Pilot 

Bench 

Bench 

Waste or 
Media 

Soil 

(12,800 cy) 

Soil 

(180,000 cy) 

Soil 

(5000 cy) 

Soil 

Soil (130 cy) 

Soil, 

sediments, 
and other 
solids 
(400 cy) 

Soil 

Soil 

Sediment 

Industry or Site 
Type 

Waste treatment, 
recycling, and 
disposal 

Pesticide 

manufacturing 

Inorganic 
chemical 
manufacturing, 
wood preserving 

j 

Herbicide 

manufacturing, 

explosives 

manufacturing 

Munitions 

Manufacturing 

Munitions 

Manufacturing 

Pesticide 

manufacturing 

Wood preserving 











c j 










-C2 










o’ S 

—* 

<N 

m 



VO 

r- 

oo 

O' 

S- 3 





















-o 

<u 

T3 

’> 

o 

1— 

Cl. 

O 

C 

!— 

<u 

C/5 

o 

U 


C3 


mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram ~ = Not available TWA = Total waste analysis cy = Cubic yards 





















7.0 PYROMETALLURGICAL RECOVERY 
FOR ARSENIC 


Summary 

Information gathered for this report indicate that 
pyrometallurgical processes have been implemented 
to recover arsenic from soil and wastes in four full- 
scale applications. These technologies may have 
only limited application because of their cost ($208 
- $458 per ton in 1991 dollars) and because the cost 
of importing arsenic is generally lower than 
reclaiming it using pyrometallurgical processes 
(Ref. 7.6). The average cost of imported arsenic 
metal in 1999 was $0.45 per pound (Ref. 7.6, in 
1999 dollars). In order to make recovery 
economically feasible, the concentration of metals in 
the waste should be over 10,000 mg/kg (Ref. 7.2). 


Technology Description and Principles 


Technology Description: Pyrometallurgical 
recovery processes use heat to convert an arsenic- 
contaminated waste feed into a product with a high 
arsenic concentration that can be reused or sold. 

Media Treated 

• Soil 

• Industrial wastes 

Types of Pyrometallurgical Processes 

• High temperature metals recovery 

• Slag cleaning process 


A variety of processes reportedly have been used to 
recover arsenic from soil and waste containing arsenic. 
High temperature metals recovery (HTMR) involves 
heating a waste feed to cause metals to volatilize or 
“fume”. The airborne metals are then removed with the 
off-gas and recovered, while the residual solid materials 
are disposed. Other pyrometallurgical technologies 
typically involve modifications at metal refining 
facilities to recover arsenic from process residuals. 

The Metallurgie-Hoboken-Overpelt (MHO) slag 
cleaning process involves blast smelting with the 
addition of coke as a reducing agent of primary and 
secondary materials from lead, copper, and iron 
smelting operations (Ref. 7.9). 


Media and Contaminants Treated 

This technology has recovered heavy metals, such as 
arsenic and lead, from soil, sludge, and industrial 
wastes (Ref. 7.8). The references used for this report 
contained information on applications of HTMR to 
recover arsenic from contaminated soil (Ref. 7.3) and 
secondary lead smelter soda slag (Ref. 7.8). In 
addition, one metals refining process that was modified 
to recover arsenic (Ref. 7.9) was identified. The 
recycling and reuse of arsenic from consumer end- 
product scrap is not typically done (Ref. 7.6). 

Type, Number, and Scale of Identified Projects 
Treating Soil and Wastes Containing Arsenic 

This report identified application of pyrometallurgical 
recovery of arsenic at full scale at four facilities (Ref. 
7.3, 7.8, 7.9). No pilot-scale projects for arsenic were 
found. 

Figure 7.1 

Scale of Identified Pyrometallurgical Projects for 
Arsenic Treatment 



0 12 3 4 


Summary of Performance Data 

Table 7.1 presents the available performance data. 
Because this technology typically generates a product 
that is reused instead of disposed, the performance of 
these processes is typically measured by the percent 
removal of arsenic from the waste, the concentration of 
arsenic in the recovered product, and the concentration 
of impurities in the recovered product. Other soil and 
waste treatment processes are usually evaluated by 
leach testing the treated materials. 

Both of the soil projects identified have feed and treated 
material arsenic concentrations. One project had an 


7-1 














arsenic feed concentration of 86 mg/kg and a treated 
arsenic concentration of 6.9 mg/kg (Project 1). The 
other project had an teachable arsenic concentration in 
the feed of 0.040 mg/L and 0.019 mg/L in the treated 
material (Project 2). 

Both of the industrial waste projects identified have 
feed and residual arsenic data, and one has post¬ 
treatment leachability data. The feed concentrations 
ranged from 428 to 2,100 mg/kg (Projects 3 and 4). 

The residual arsenic concentrations ranged from 92.1 to 
1,340 mg/kg, with less than 5 mg/L leachability (Project 
3). 

The case study in this section discusses in greater detail 
an HTMR application at the National Smelting and 
Refining Company Superfund Site. This information is 
summarized in Table 7.1, Project 3. 


Case Study: National Smelting and Refining 
Company Superfund Site, Atlanta, Georgia 

Secondary lead smelter slag from the National 
Smelting and Refining Company Superfund Site in 
Atlanta, Georgia was processed using high 
temperature metals recovery at a full-scale facility. 
The initial waste feed had an arsenic concentration 
range of 428 to 1,040 mg/kg. The effluent slag 
concentration ranged from 92.1 to 1,340 mg/kg of 
arsenic, but met project goals for arsenic leachability 
(<5 mg/L TCLP). The oxide from the baghouse 
fumes had an arsenic concentration of 1,010 to 1,170 
mg/kg; however, the arsenic was not recovered (Ref. 
7.8) (see Project 3, Table 7.1). 


Applicability, Advantages, and Potential Limitations 

Although recovering arsenic from soil and wastes is 
feasible, it has not been done in the U.S. on a large 
scale because it is generally less expensive to import 
arsenic than to obtain it through reclamation processes 
(Ref. 7.5-7). The cost of importing arsenic in 1999 was 
approximately $0.45 per pound (Ref. 7.6, in 1999 
dollars). In order to make recovery economically 
feasible, the concentration of metals in the waste should 
be over 10,000 mg/kg (Ref. 7.2). In some cases, the 
presence of other metals in the waste, such as copper, 
may provide sufficient economic incentive to recover 
copper and arsenic together for the manufacture of 
arsenical wood preservatives (Ref. 7.1). However, 
concern over the toxicity of arsenical wood 
preservatives is leading to its phase-out (Ref. 7.10). 


Factors Affecting Pyrometallurgical Recovery 

Performance 

• Particle size - Larger particles do not allow 
heat transfer between the gas and solid phases 
during HTMR. Smaller particles may increase 
the particulate in the off-gas. 

• Moisture content - A high water content 
generally reduces the efficiency of HTMR 
because it increases energy requirements. 

• Thermal conductivity - Higher thermal 
conductivity of the waste results in better heat 
transfer into the waste matrix during HTMR 
(Ref. 7.2). 

• Presence of impurities - Impurities, such as 
other heavy metals, may need to be removed, 
which increases the complexity of the treatment 
process. 


At present, arsenic is not being recovered domestically 
from arsenical residues and dusts at nonferrous 
smelters, although some of these materials are 
processed for the recovery of other materials (Ref. 7.6). 

This technology may produce treatment residuals such 
as slag, flue dust, and baghouse dust. Although some 
residuals may be treated using the same process that 
generated them, the residuals may require additional 
treatment or disposal. 

Summary of Cost Data 

The estimated cost of treatment using HTMR ranges 
from $208 to $458 per ton (in 1991 dollars). However, 
these costs are not specific to treatment of arsenic (Ref. 
7.2). No cost data for pyrometallurgical recovery for 
arsenic was found. 


Factors Affecting Pyrometallurgical Recovery 
Costs 

• Factors affecting pyrometallurgical recovery 
performance - Items in the “Factors Affecting 
Pyrometallurgical Recovey Performance’' box 
will also affect costs. 


7-2 








References 


7.1 U.S. EPA. Arsenic & Mercury - Workshop on 
Removal, Recovery, Treatment, and Disposal. 
Office of Research and Development. EPA-600- 
R-92-105. August 1992. 

7.2 U.S. EPA. Contaminants and Remedial Options 
at Selected Metal-Contaminated Sites. Office of 
Research and Development. EPA-540-R-95-512. 
July 1995. http://www.epa.gov/ncepi/Catalog/ 
EPA540R95512.html 

7.3 U.S. EPA National Risk Management Research 
Laboratory. Treatability Database. March 2001. 

7.4 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 40, Section 
268. http://lula.law.cornell.edu/cfr/ 
cfr.php?title=40&type=part&value=268 

7.5 U.S. EPA. Final Best Demonstrated Available 
Technology (BDAT) Background Document for 
K031, K084, K101, K102, Characteristic Arsenic 
Wastes (D004), Characteristic Selenium Wastes 
(DO 10), and P and U Wastes Containing Arsenic 
and Selenium Listing Constituents. Office of 
Solid Waste. May 1990. 

7.6 U.S. Geological Survey. Mineral Commodity 
Summaries. February 2000. 
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/ 
commodity/soda_ash/610300.pdf 

7.7 U.S. EPA. Engineering Bulletin. Technology 
Alternatives for the Remediation of Soils 
Contaminated with Arsenic, Cadmium, 

Chromium, Mercury, and Lead. Office of 
Emergency and Remedial Response. March 1997. 
http://www.epa.gov/ncepi/Catalog/ 
EPA540S97500.html 

7.8 U.S. EPA. Superfund Innovative Technology 
Evaluation Program. Technology Profiles Tenth 
Edition. Volume 1 Demonstration Program. 
Office of Research and Development. EPA-540- 
R-99-500a. February 1999. 
http://www.epa.gov/ncepi/Catalog/ 
EPA540R99500A.html 

7.9 U.S. EPA. Profiles of Metal Recovery 
Technologies for Mineral Processing and Other 
Metal-Bearing Hazardous Wastes. December 
1994. 

7.10 U.S. EPA. Manufacturers to Use New Wood 
Preservatives, Replacing Most Residential Uses ol 
CCA. February 12, 2002. 
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/citizens/ 

cca transition.htm 


7-3 


Table 7.1 

Arsenic Pyrometallurgical Recovery Performance Data for Arsenic 


Ol 

o 

i- 

s 

O 

c/o 


c "O 
.2 2 
« =3 

E xr. 

3a 
S3 0/ 

? £ 
« £ 


S § 

t £ 

> S3 

' U 

T3 ~ 
4» C 
•_ 0/ 
4) O 

> a 
o o 
w u 

a> w 


0S 

V) 

V «J 

© C 2 
S- «> .2 

§2| 
S3 3 S 

E e 

cs » r ® 
— 4» (J 

^ cn 
pi 


_ — e 
C T3 ® 
© o 
•S a> o 
•*S U. •- «5 

s w c 

S i« 4) t 

« © 2 4» 

S S« | 

* £ u 


O 

2 § 
s 

W C3 

Z ^ 

2 J 

c/5 


o 

S3 

"5 


73 

o 

C/O 


■c 
5 E 

C/S • — 

S3 S3 

0/ 

Pi 


^ rti 

ZJ 

= «« S 

T3 J- L» 
C O ^ 


u. 

70 4> 
© X 

•o 9 E 

>- 3 

°- z 


rn 


H 

X 


H 

bJ) 

X 

'Sb 

E 

ON 

NO 


< 

H 

bX) 

X 

"Sb 

E 

NO 

OC 


3 

U- 


o 

c 

3 JL» 

1 J 

I | 

_ 3 

‘5 

c/o 


rn 


C2 

H 

lC 


a. 

U 

h 

'bl) 

E 

ON 

o 

© 


U 

H 

f-J 

'bl) 

E 

o 

-t 

o 


3 

PL 


O 

c 

s JJ 
3 X) 
O co 

E -3 

CO 3 

X 3 

‘5 

c/o 


<N 


OO 

r~^ 


H 


u 

-a 

'3 

o 


bfl 

X 

'535 

E 


s< 
. > 
- H 


< o 


a. 

O I-J 
3- ^ U 

•n < H 
I hd 

— w 00 

E 
*/o 


<N bX) 
On X 


bo 

I < s b 

- b 2 “ 


bX) 6p V 
3 £ 

C/O 


bX> 

c0 


C/0 


bo 

x 

'5b 

E ^ 

o < 

s g 

_r t- 


oo 

(N 

3- 


03 

C 

3 

3 

CSX) 

bX> 

3 

>4 

3 

3 

-o ■ 

3 

cH - 

.o 

3 

’E 

Q. 

•— 


—- 

C3 

E 

<U " 

03 


<u 

co 

a. 

z 

E 

PL 

W 

U 

3 

C/O .' 


c/o 


a/ 


c/o 


TJ ^ 
3 rt ocI 
_a> -to c 

9 ° 

C/D '*-• 


3 
T3 
3 
O 

O „ 
(U W 

c/o 


In ^ 
^ r- 


(U 

E 


b0 

_3 




ON 


O 

3 : 


bo 

3 5^ 

2 bD 

•T E _ 
<u o 

G.O ^ 
0,0^ 

8 K b 


o 

o _ a/ 

rn ■O X 
^ ^ O 
Cht 

O S_^ -*—* 


-o 

3 

<U 


_o 

"sS 


3 

X 

-a 

3 

<L) 


bo .2 
' 3 

aj 

c/s 


^b 

E 


< 


o 

3 

3 ^ 
O 

+3 x 

2 J2 

• 3 

3 3 

(L> > 

O CO 
3 

O 

O 


bfl 

x 


o 

o 

© 


< 


bO 

_3 

C/O 


3 

© 'bb 

o E 

_3 

N 


bO 

X 

>< 

c ^ 
o r 
© 

ol 


c E 
<i> E 

x .2 

O OX) 

■§ « 
T" QQ 


3 

X 


■© . _ O o 

c C? “ 5 C C 
3 3 

© -c 

3 

O O TO 
•a 


3 

C3 

E 


<D 

o .2 ^ X 
S x Q..2 -5 


o 3 
aj " 

c/s 


_ _ >-H 4) 3 

S 3 O « > 

3 c/S 3 rrt 

0/ 3 


TCLP = Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure. TWA = Total Waste Analysis. 

-- = Not available HTMR = High Temperature Metals Recovery. 

MHO = Metallurgie-Hoboken-Overpelt process. 




































8.0 


IN SITU SOIL FLUSHING FOR ARSENIC 


Model of an In Situ Flushing System 


Summary 

Data gathered for this report show that in situ soil 
flushing has been used to treat arsenic-contaminated 
soils in a limited number of applications. Two 
projects have been identified that are currently 
operating at full scale, but performance results are 
not yet available. 


Technology Description and Principles 

In situ soil flushing techniques may employ water or a 
mixture of water and additives as the flushing solution. 
Additives may include acids (sulfuric, hydrochloric, 
nitric, phosphoric, or carbonic acid), bases (for 
example, sodium hydroxide), chelating or complexing 
agents (such as EDTA), reducing agents, or surfactant 
to aid in the desorption and dissolution of the target 
contaminants (Ref. 8.1). 

Subsurface containment barriers or other hydraulic 
controls have sometimes been used in conjunction with 
soil flushing to help control the flow of flushing fluids 
and assist in the capture of the contaminated fluid. 
Impermeable membranes have also been used in some 
cases to limit infiltration of groundwater, which could 
cause dilution of flushing solutions and loss of 
hydraulic control (Ref. 8.1). 


Technology Description: In situ soil flushing is a 
technology that extracts organic and inorganic 
contaminants from soil by using water, a solution of 
chemicals in water, or an organic extractant, without 
excavating the contaminated material itself. The 
solution is injected into or sprayed onto the area of 
contamination, causing the contaminants to become 
mobilized by dissolution or emulsification. After 
passing through the contamination zone, the 
contaminant-bearing flushing solution is collected 
by downgradient wells or trenches and pumped to 
the surface for removal, treatment, discharge, or 
reinjection (Ref. 8.1). 

Media Treated: 

• Soil (in situ) 


Media and Contaminants Treated 

Soil flushing has been used to treat soils in situ 
contaminated with organic, inorganic, and metal 
contaminants (Ref. 8.1), including arsenic. 



Type, Number, and Scale of Identified Projects 
Treating Soil Containing Arsenic 

The references identified for this report contained 
information on two full-scale in situ soil flushing 
projects for the treatment of arsenic at two Superfund 
sites (Ref. 8.4), and two at pilot scale at two other sites 
(Ref. 8.6, 8.7). At one of the Superfund sites, 150,000 
cubic yards of soil are being treated, while at the other 
19,000 cubic yards of soil are being treated. Figure 8.1 
shows the number of projects identified at pilot and full 
scale. 

Figure 8.1 

Scale of Identified In Situ Soil Flushing Projects for 
Arsenic Treatment 



Summary of Performance Data 

Arsenic treatment is ongoing at two Superfund sites 
using in situ soil flushing, and has been completed at 
two other sites (Ref. 8.3, 8.4, 8.6, 8.7). Performance 
data for the Superfund site projects are not yet available 


8-1 



























Case Study: Vineland Chemical Company 
Superfund Site 

The Vineland Chemical Company Superfund Site in 
Vineland, New Jersey is a former manufacturing 
facility for herbicides containing arsenic. Soils 
were contaminated with arsenic from the improper 
storage and disposal of herbicide by-product salts 
(RCRA waste code K031). Approximately 150,000 
cubic yards of soil were treated. Pretreatment 
arsenic concentrations were as high as 650 mg/kg. 
The soil was flushed with groundwater from the 
site, which was extracted, treated to remove arsenic, 
and reinjected into the contaminated soil. Because 
the species of arsenic contaminating the soil is 
highly soluble in water, the addition of surfactants 
and cosolvents was not necessary. No data are 
currently available on the treatment performance 
(Ref. 8.3, 8.4, 8.8) (see Project 1, Table 8.1). The 
remedy at this site was changed to soil washing in 
order to reduce treatment cost and the time needed 
to remediate the site. 


as the projects are ongoing. Performance data are also 
not available for the other two projects. See Table 8.1 
for information on these projects. The case study in this 
section discusses in greater detail a soil flushing 
application at the Vineland Chemical Company 
Superfund Site. This information is summarized in 
Table 8.1, Project 3. 


Factors Affecting Soil Flushing Performance 

• Number of contaminants treated - The 

technology works best when a single 
contaminant is targeted. Identifying a flushing 
fluid that can effectively remove multiple 
contaminants may be difficult (Ref. 8.1). 

• Soil characteristics - Some soil characteristics 
may effect the performance of soil flushing. 

For example, an acidic flushing solution may 
have reduced effectiveness in an alkaline soil 
(Ref. 8.1). 

• Precipitation - Soil flushing may cause arsenic 
or other chemicals in the soil to precipitate and 
obstruct the soil pore structure and inhibit flow 
through the soil (Ref. 8.1). 

• Temperature - Low temperatures may cause 
the flushing solution to freeze, particularly 
when shallow infiltration galleries and above¬ 
ground sprays are used to apply the flushing 
solution (8.1). 


Applicability, Advantages, and Potential Limitations 

The equipment used for in situ soil flushing is relatively 
easy to construct and operate, and the process does not 
involve excavation or disposal of the soil, thereby 
avoiding the expense and hazards associated with these 
activities (Ref. 8.1). Spent flushing solutions may 
require treatment to remove contaminants prior to reuse 
or disposal. Treatment of flushing fluid results in 
process sludges and residual solids, such as spent 
carbon and spent ion exchange resin, which may require 
treatment before disposal. In some cases, the spent 
flushing solution may be discharged to a publicly- 
owned treatment works (POTW), or reused in the 
flushing process. Residual flushing additives in the soil 
may be a concern and should be evaluated on a site- 
specific basis (Ref. 8.1). In addition, soil flushing may 
cause contaminants to mobilize and spread to 
uncontaminated areas of soil or groundwater. 


Factors Affecting Soil Flushing Costs 

• Reuse of flushing solution - The ability to 
reuse the flushing solution may reduce the cost 
by reducing the amount of flushing solution 
required (Ref. 8.1). 

• Contaminant recovery - Recovery of 
contaminants from the flushing solution and the 
reuse or sale of recovered contaminants may be 
possible in some cases (Ref. 8.3, 8.4). 

• Factors affecting soil flushing performance - 
Items in the “Factors Affecting Soil Flushing 
Performance” box will also affect costs. 


Summary of Cost Data 

No data are currently available on the cost of soil 

flushing systems used to treat arsenic. 

References 

8.1. U.S. EPA. Engineering Bulletin. Technology 
Alternatives for the Remediation of Soils 
Contaminated with Arsenic, Cadmium, 
Chromium, Mercury, and Lead. Office of 
Emergency and Remedial Response. EPA 540-S- 
97-500. March 1997. 
http://www.epa.gov/ncepi/Catalog/ 
EPA540S97500.html 


8-2 








8.2. U.S. EPA. Contaminants and Remedial Options 
at Selected Metal-Contaminated Sites. Office of 
Research and Development. EPA-540-R-95-512 
July 1995. 

http://www.epa.gov/ncepi/Catalog/ 

EPA540R95512.html 

8.3. U.S. EPA. Database for EPA REACH IT 
(REmediation And CHaracterization Innovative 
Technologies). March 2001. 
http://www.epareachit.org. 

8.4. U.S. EPA. Treatment Technologies for Site 
Cleanup: Annual Status Report (Tenth Edition). 
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. 
EPA-542-R-01 -004. February 2001. 
http://www.epa.gov/ncepi/Catalog/ 
EPA542R01004.html 

8.5. U.S. EPA. Recent Developments for In Situ 
Treatment of Metals Contaminated Soil. EPA 
March 1997. http://clu-in.org 

8.6 Redwine JC. Innovative Technologies for 
Remediation of Arsenic in Soil and Groundwater. 
Southern Company Services, Inc. Presented at the 
Air and Waste Management Association’s 93 rd 
Annual Conference and Exhibition, Salt Lake 
City, June 2000. 

8.7 Miller JP, Hartsfield TH, Corey AC, Markey RM. 
In Situ Environmental Remediation of an 
Energized Substation. EPRI. Palo Alto, CA. 
Report No. 1005169. 2001. 

8.8 U.S. EPA. Vineland Chemical Company, Inc. 
Fact Sheet. April 2002. 
http://www.epa.gov/region02/ 
superfund/npl/0200209c.pdf 


8-3 


Table 8.1 

Arsenic In Situ Soil Flushing Performance Data for Arsenic 


u 

4» 

u. 

3 

O 

C/3 


oo oo 
fc? 00 
OO 


Tf 

00 

m 

00 


r-~ 

oo 


oq 

oo 


u. 

o 

c 

<u 

00 

< % 
s 

.5 o 

J3 - 

£ a. 


o 

C/3 


u 


3 U 

C/2 


C/2 

r. 3 
3 C r- 

*§ * 2 
3 

2 x 3 
00 u ^ 

-£ >2 -T3 

• — -C c 

^ -O CO 
fli ^ 

g> It 

“ o S 

3 40 3 

rr u 


-o 

0) o 
00 *5 
C l- 
3 O 


4> 


c 

OJ 


L. 

cl 

C/5 

C3 2P 

2 1 
u 2 
U «5 

F? ^ 


Cu ' 


o 

C/2 


"O "O 
> C 
5: 3 

J2 ~ 
c2 S 

t £ 

3 3 

3 U 

£ is 

X c 
.« o 

o 

6X) c3 

c >- 

. 3 

JO X 

IF u 

5 >* 

Uu 


U .J 
2-» .3 
3 c 

£ E 

« « 
u G 

ei2 00 
J- UJ 

S Q 

ft cu 


c r- 
o o 
•C o 
u rN 

’H. c 

E 1Z 


4> 

00 


c 

3 
3 i_i 
X u 

U -T3 

.2 c 

T3 3 


O 
u 

*- U 

u u 
u a. 

x 

2 

a. 


§1 
O c3 

_C U 
.3 'C 

* J 

00 Q. 
C c /2 

X _§ 

2 a 


4-! 

O 

00 JO 

“ U 
3 


O 


3 


•3 U 


c 

u 

£ 
•*—» 
03 
<D 
J- 

f— 


u 

u 


3 


u 


00 

c 

x 

C/2 

3 

CC 


C 
O 

•- -a _ 
>2 £ x 

X rt 43 
r " u 


U 

£ 3; 3 

6Si 
•5 .£■ £ 

44 u u 

2 £ 
CL 
O 
u 


y 5 

c .2 

u 


C/2 

L. 

< 


B 

u 
o 

c 

r o 

fc 0 


3 

B 


-J 

'OO 

£ 

(N 

O 

o 


•- g 

c .2 
u 15 

C/2 «S 

s- — 

< C 
15 v 
'■B a 

S u 


00 

x 

"00 ^ 
E < 

o 
c/~) 

20 


£ 

t— 


O 

(N 


i— 

o 

u g 

£ ® 
5 ■* - 
3 3 

* O 

3 J 

£ 


■g 0 

c£ •- 

X J= 

u _) 

§•« 

OO X 
C3 

>2 1-1 

C U _ 
3 CL 3 

&o> 


T3 

C 

J2 

u 


£ 
o 

U •- 
w 00 


u 


u 
■*—* 

■° 5 
1 _• 

S.J 

3 c 


c 

3 

X 


-J 

Ol. 

J3 

u 

3 

U 

CD 

3 

O 

+-* 

C3 


3 

fO 

‘C 

_o 

L_ 


U 


u 

Cl 

C/2 

£ 

3 

u. 

00 


J 

'BO 

£ 


u 

“« 

u 

C/3 


3 

tu 


3 

UL 


_o 

i£ 


_c 

ex 


O C8 

S ‘-5 

</2 U 


>2 

u 

— o 


0J 


C/3 


o 


>2 

u 

o 

o 

o 

o' 


o 

00 


o 

00 


£ 

3 

!_ 

00 

o 


u 

a. 

C/2 

£ 

C3 

s— 

00 


00 

~00 

£ 


o u 

b >2 

*5 H 

c^ ^ 

3 U 

-a .-S 
E c^ 


00 

c 

u ’C 
-O 3 

o u 

U 3 

^ g 


bi! 

g .2 O 

I g •§ 

£ -E 2 

3 CL 


c 

L. O 

u 
5£ 

o c/2 

CU -O 
3 

C/2 


3 


c 

1- O 
u \3 
^ 5 

o C/2 

X -3 
3 

C/2 


O U 

u £ 

•S’ E 

*- 3 

a- Z 


<N 


fO 


C/5 

c>5 

c3 

C 

c3 

<D 

• 4 —* 

C/5 

C3 

3 

2 —* 

o 

H 

II 

< 

H 


u 

XI 

3 

3 

> 

3 

2 —* 

o 

Z 















IIB 

ARSENIC TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES 
APPLICABLE TO WATER 










9.0 


PRECIPITATION/COPRECIPITATION 
FOR ARSENIC 


Summary 

Precipitation/coprecipitation has been the most 
frequently used method to treat arsenic- 
contaminated water, including groundwater, surface 
water, leachate, mine drainage, drinking water, and 
wastewater in numerous pilot- and full-scale 
applications. Based on the information collected to 
prepare this report, this technology typically can 
reduce arsenic concentrations to less than 0.050 
mg/L and in some cases has reduced arsenic 
concentrations to below 0.010 mg/L. 


Technology Description and Principles 

For this report, technologies were considered 
precipitation/coprecipitation if they involved the 
following steps: 

• Mixing of treatment chemicals into the water 

• Formation of a solid matrix through precipitation, 
coprecipitation, or a combination of these 
processes, and 

• Separation of the solid matrix from the water 

Technologies that remove arsenic by passing it through 
a fixed bed of media, where the arsenic may be 
removed through adsorption, precipitation/ 
coprecipitation, or a combination of these processes, are 
discussed in the adsorption treatment section (Section 
11 . 0 ). 

Precipitation/coprecipitation usually involves pH 
adjustment and addition of a chemical precipitant or 


Technology Description: Precipitation uses 
chemicals to transform dissolved contaminants into 
an insoluble solid. In coprecipitation, the target 
contaminant may be dissolved or in a colloidal or 
suspended form. Dissolved contaminants do not 
precipitate, but are adsorbed onto another species 
that is precipitated. Colloidal or suspended 
contaminants become enmeshed with other 
precipitated species, or are removed through 
processes such as coagulation and flocculation. 
Many processes to remove arsenic from water 
involve a combination of precipitation and 
coprecipitation. The precipitated/coprecipitated 
solid is then removed from the liquid phase by 
clarification or filtration. Arsenic precipitation/ 
coprecipitation can use combinations of the 
chemicals and methods listed below. 


Media Treated: 

• Drinking water 

• Groundwater 

• Wastewater 


• Surface water 

• Leachate 

• Mine drainage 


Chemicals and Methods Used for Arsenic 
Precipitation/Coprecipitation: 


Ferric salts, (e.g., 
ferric chloride), ferric 
sulfate, ferric 
hydroxide 
Ammonium sulfate 
Alum (aluminum 
hydroxide) 


pH adjustment 
Lime softening, 
limestone, calcium 
hydroxide 
Manganese sulfate 
Copper sulfate 
Sulfide 


coagulant; it can also include addition of a chemical 
oxidant (Ref. 9.1). Oxidation of arsenic to its less 
soluble As(V) state can increase the effectiveness of 


Model of a Precipitation/Coprecipitation System 
















































precipitation/coprecipitation processes, and can be done 
as a separate pretreatment step or as part of the 
precipitation process. Some pretreatment processes that 
oxidize As(III) to As(V) include ozonation, photo 
oxidation, or the addition of oxidizing chemicals such 
as potassium permanganate, sodium hypochlorite, or 
hydrogen peroxide (Ref. 9.8, 9.16, 9.22, 9.25, 9.29). 
Clarification or filtration are commonly used to remove 
the solid precipitate. 

Media and Contaminants Treated 

Precipitation/coprecipitation is frequently used to treat 
water contaminated with metals (Ref. 9.1). The 
references identified for this report contained 
information on its application to industrial wastewater, 
groundwater, surface water, leachate, and mine 
drainage. 

Type, Number, and Scale of Identified Projects 
Treating Water Containing Arsenic 

Precipitation/coprecipitation processes for arsenic in 
drinking water, groundwater, and industrial wastewater 
are commercially available. The data gathered in 
support of this report include information on its full- 
scale application at 16 sites. Information on Hill-scale 
treatment of drinking water is available for eight 
facilities and of industrial wastewater for 21 facilities. 
Information on 24 pilot-scale applications was also 
identified. Figure 9.1 shows the number of pilot- and 
full-scale precipitation/coprecipitation projects in the 
sources researched. 


Figure 9.1 

Scale of Identified Precipitation/Coprecipitation 
Projects for Arsenic Treatment 



Summary of Performance Data 

Table 9.1 presents the available performance data for 
pilot- and full-scale precipitation/coprecipitation 


Precipitation/Coprecipitation Chemistry 

The chemistry of precipitation/coprecipitation is 
often complex, and depends upon a variety of 
factors, including the speciation of arsenic, the 
chemical precipitants used and their concentrations, 
the pH of the water, and the presence of other 
chemicals in the water to be treated. As a result, the 
particular mechanism that results in the removal of 
arsenic through precipitation/coprecipitation 
treatment is process-specific, and in some cases is 
not completely understood. For example, the 
removal mechanism in the treatment of As(V) with 
Fe(III) has been debated in the technical literature 
(Ref. 9.33). 

It is beyond the scope of this report to provide all 
possible chemical reactions and mechanisms for 
precipitation/coprecipitation processes that are used 
to remove arsenic. More detailed information on the 
chemistry involved in specific processes can be 
found in the references listed at the end of this 
section. 


treatment. It contains information on 69 applications, 
including 20 groundwater, surface water, and mine 
drainage, 15 drinking water, and 34 industrial 
wastewater projects. The information that appears in 
the "Precipitating Agent or Process" column of Table 
9.1, including the chemicals used, the descriptions of 
the processes, and whether it involved precipitation or 
coprecipitation, is based on the cited references. This 
information was not independently checked for 
accuracy or technical feasability. For example, in some 
cases, the reference used may apply the term 
"precipitation" to a process that is actually 
coprecipitation. 

The effectiveness of this technology can be evaluated 
by comparing influent and effluent contaminant 
concentrations. All of the 12 environmental media 
projects for which both influent and effluent arsenic 
concentration data were available had influent 
concentrations greater than 0.050 mg/L. The treatments 
achieved effluent concentrations of less than 0.050 
mg/L in eight of the projects and less than 0.010 mg/L 
in four of the projects. Information on the leachability 
of arsenic from the precipitates and sludges was 
available for three projects. For all of these projects, the 
concentration of leachable arsenic as measured by the 
toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) (the 
RCRA regulatory threshold for identifying a waste that 
is hazardous because it exhibits the characteristic of 
toxicity for arsenic) was below 5.0 mg/L. 


9-2 












Information on treatment goals was not collected for 
this report. 

Some projects in Table 9.1 include treatment trains, the 
most common being precipitation/coprecipitation 
followed by activated carbon adsorption or membrane 
filtration. In those cases, the performance data listed 
are for the entire treatment train, not just the 
precipitation/coprecipitation step. 

The case study in this section discusses in greater detail 
the removal of arsenic from groundwater using an 
aboveground treatment system at the Winthrop Landfill 
Superfund site. This information is summarized in 
Table 9.1, Project 1. 

Applicability, Advantages, and Potential Limitations 

Precipitation/coprecipitation is an active ex situ 
treatment technology designed to function with routine 
chemical addition and sludge removal. It usually 
generates a sludge residual, which typically requires 
treatment such as dewatering and subsequent disposal. 
Some sludge from the precipitation/coprecipitation of 
arsenic can be a hazardous waste and require additional 
treatment such as solidification/stabilization prior to 
disposal. In the presence of other metals or 


Of the 12 drinking w ater projects having both influent 
and effluent arsenic concentration data, eight had 
influent concentrations greater than 0.050 mg/L. The 
treatments achieved effluent concentrations of less than 
0.050 mg/L in all eight of these projects, and less than 
0.010 mg/L in two projects. Information on the 
teachability of arsenic from the precipitates and sludges 
was available for six projects. For these projects the 
leachable concentration of arsenic was below 5.0 mg/L. 

All of the 28 wastew ater projects having both influent 
and effluent arsenic concentration data had influent 
concentrations greater than 0.050 mg/L. The treatments 
achieved effluent concentrations of less than 0.050 
mg/L in 16 of these projects, and less than 0.010 mg/L 
in 11 projects. Information on the leachability of 
arsenic from the precipitates and sludges was available 
for four projects. Only one of these projects had a 
leachable concentration of arsenic below 5.0 mg/L. 

Projects that did not reduce effluent arsenic 
concentrations to below 0.050 or 0.010 mg/L do not 
necessarily indicate that precipitation/coprecipitation 
cannot achieve these levels. The treatment goal tor 
some applications could have been above these 
concentrations, and the technology may have been 
designed and operated to meet a higher concentration. 


9-3 


Case Study: Winthrop Landfill Site 

The Winthrop Landfill Site, located in Winthrop, 
Maine, is a former dump site that accepted 
municipal and industrial wastes (See Table 9.1, 
Project 1). Groundwater at the site w'as 
contaminated with arsenic and chlorinated and 
nonchlorinated VOCs. A pump-and-treat system for 
the groundwater has been in operation at the site 
since 1995. Organic compounds have been 
remediated to below' action levels, and the pump- 
and-treat system is currently being operated for the 
removal of arsenic alone. The treatment train 
consists of equalization/pH adjustment to pH 3, 
chemical oxidation with hydrogen peroxide, 
precipitation/coprecipitation via pH adjustment to 
PH 7, flocculation/clarification, and sand bed 
filtration. It treats 65 gallons per minute of 
groundwater containing average arsenic 
concentrations of 0.3 mg/L to below’ 0.005 mg/L. 
Through May, 2001,359 pounds of arsenic had 
been removed from groundwater at the Winthrop 
Landfill Site using this above ground treatment 
system. Capital costs for the system were about $2 
million, and O&M costs are approximately 
$250,000 per year (Ref. 9.29, cost year not 
provided). 


Factors Affecting Precipitation/Coprecipitation 

Performance 

• Valence state of arsenic - The presence of the 
more soluble trivalent state of arsenic may 
reduce the removal efficiency. The solubility of 
arsenic depends upon its valence state. pH. the 
specific arsenic compound, and the presence of 
other chemicals with which arsenic might react 
(Ref. 9.12). Oxidation to As(V) could improve 
arsenic removal through precipitation/ 
coprecipitation (Ref. 9.7). 

• pH - In general, arsenic removal will be 
maximized at the pH at which the precipitated 
species is least soluble. The optimal pH range 
for precipitation/coprecipitation depends upon 
the w'aste treated and the specific treatment 
process (Ref. 9.7). 

• Presence of other compounds - The presence 
of other metals or contaminants may impact the 
effectiveness of precipitation/coprecipitation. 
For example, sulfate could decrease arsenic 
removal in processes using ferric chloride as a 
coagulant, while the presence of calcium or iron 
may increase the remov al of arsenic in these 
processes (Ref. 9.7). 






Factors Affecting Precipitation/Coprecipitation 

Costs 

• Type of chemical addition - The chemical 
added will affect costs. For example, calcium 
hypochlorite, is a less expensive oxidant than 
potassium permanganate (Ref. 9.16). 

• Chemical dosage - The cost generally 
increases with increased chemical addition. 
Larger amounts of chemicals added usually 
results in a larger amount of sludge requiring 
additional treatment or disposal (Ref. 9.7, 

9.12). 

• Treatment goal - Application could require 
additional treatment to meet stringent cleanup 
goals and/or effluent and disposal standards 
(Ref. 9.7) 

• Sludge disposal - Sludge produced from the 
precipitation/coprecipitation process could be 
considered a hazardous waste and require 
additional treatment before disposal, or disposal 
as hazardous waste (Ref. 9.7). 

• Factors affecting 

precipitation/coprecipitation performance - 

Items in the “Factors Affecting 
Precipitation/Coprecipitation Performance” box 
will also affect costs. 


contaminants, arsenic precipitation/coprecipitation 
processes may also cause other compounds to 
precipitate, which can render the resulting sludge 
hazardous (Ref. 9.7). The effluent may also require 
further treatment, such as pH adjustment, prior to 
discharge or reuse. 

More detailed information on selection and design of 
arsenic treatment systems for small drinking water 
systems is available in the document “ Arsenic 
Treatment Technology t Design Manual for Small 
Systems “ (Ref. 9.36). 


treatment train (Ref. 9.29, cost year not provided). At 
the power substation in Fort Walton, Florida, (Table 
9.1, Project 4), the reported O&M cost was $0,006 per 
gallon (for the entire treatment train. Ref 9.32, cost year 
not provided). Capital cost information was not 
provided. 

A low-cost, point-of-use precipitation/coprecipitation 
treatment designed for use in developing nations with 
arsenic-contaminated drinking water was pilot-tested in 
four areas of Bangladesh (Project 31). This simple 
treatment process consists of a two-bucket system that 
uses potassium permanganate and alum to precipitate 
arsenic, followed by sedimentation and fdtration. The 
equipment cost of the project was approximately $6, 
and treatment of 40 liters of water daily would require a 
monthly chemical cost of $0.20 (Ref. 9.22, cost year not 
provided). 

The document" Technologies and Costs for Removal of 
Arsenic From Drinking Water " (Ref. 9.7) contains more 
information on the cost of systems to treat arsenic in 
drinking water to below the revised MCL of 0.010 
mg/L. The document includes capital and O&M cost 
curves for three precipitation/coprecipitation processes: 

• Enhanced coagulation/filtration 

• Enhanced lime softening 

• Coagulation assisted micro filtration 

These cost curves are based on computer cost models 
for drinking water treatment systems. Table 3.4 in 
Section 3 of this document contains cost estimates 
based on these curves for coagulation assisted 
microfiltration. The cost information available for 
enhanced coagulation/ filtration and enhanced lime 
softening are for retrofitting existing 
precipitation/coprecipitation systems at 
drinking water treatment plants to meet the revised 
MCL. Therefore, the cost information could not be 
used to estimate the cost of a new precipitation/ 
coprecipitation treatment system. 


Summary of Cost Data 

Limited cost data are currently available for 
precipitation/coprecipitation treatment of arsenic. At 
the Winthrop Landfill Site (Project 1), groundwater 
containing arsenic, 1,1-dichloroethane, and vinyl 
chloride is being pumped and treated above ground 
through a treatment train that includes precipitation. 

The total capital cost of this treatment system was $2 
million ($1.8 million for construction and $0.2 million 
for design). O&M costs were about $350,000 per year 
for the first few years and are now approximately 
$250,000 per year. The treatment system has a capacity 
of 65 gpm. However, these costs are for the entire 


References 

9.1 Federal Remediation Technologies Reference 
Guide and Screening Manual, Version 3.0. 
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable 
http://www.frtr.gov./matrix2/top_page.html 

9.2 Twidwell, L.G., et al. Technologies and 
Potential Technologies for Removing Arsenic 
from Process and Mine Wastewater. Presented 
at "REWAS ’99." San Sebastian, Spain. 
September 1999. 

http://www.mtech.edu/metallurgy/arsenic/ 

REWASAS%20for%20proceedings99%20in%2 

0word.pdf 


9-4 




9.3 U.S. EPA. Final Best Demonstrated Available 
Technology (BDAT) Background Document for 
K031, K084, K101, K102, Characteristic Arsenic 
Wastes (D004), Characteristic Selenium Wastes 
(DO 10), and P and U Wastes Containing Arsenic 
and Selenium Listing Constituents. Office of 
Solid Waste. May 1990. 

9.4 U.S. EPA. Best Demonstrated Available 
Technology (BDAT) Background Document for 
Wood Preserving Wastes: F032, F034, and 
F035; Final. April, 1996. http://www.epa.gov/ 
epaoswer/hazwaste/ldr/wood/bdat_bd.pdf 

9.5 U.S. EPA. Pump and Treat of Contaminated 
Groundwater at the Baird and McGuire 
Superfund Site, Holbrook, Massachusetts. 

Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable. 
September, 1998. 
http://www.frtr.gov/costperf.html. 

9.6 U.S. EPA. Development Document for Effluent 
Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the 
Centralized Waste Treatment Industry. 
December, 2000. 

http://www.epa.gov/ost/guide/cwt/final/ 

devtdoc.html 

9.7 U.S. EPA. Technologies and Costs for Removal 
of Arsenic From Drinking Water. EPA-R-00- 
028. Office of Water. December, 2000. 

http:// www. epa. go v/safe water/ars/ 
treatments_and_costs.pdf 

9.8 U.S. EPA. Treatment Technologies for Site 
Cleanup: Annual Status Report (Tenth Edition). 
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. 
EPA-542-R-01 -004. February 2001. 
http://www.epa.gov/ncepi/Catalog/ 
EPA542R01004.html 

9.9 U.S. EPA National Risk Management Research 
Laboratory. Treatability Database. 

9.10 U.S. EPA Technology Innovation Office. 
Database for EPA REACH IT (REmediation 
And CHaracterization Innovative Technologies). 
http://www.epareachit.org. March, 2001. 

9.11 Electric Power Research Institute. Innovative 
Technologies for Remediation of Arsenic in Soil 
Groundwater: Soil Flushing, In-Situ Fixation, 

Iron Coprecipitation, and Ceramic Membrane 
Filtration, http://www.epri.com. 1996. 

9.12 U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development. 
Contaminants and Remedial Options at Selected 
Metal-Contaminated Sites. EPA/540/R-95/512. 
July, 1995. http://search.epa.gov/s97is.vts 

9.13 U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency 
Response. 1997 Biennial Reporting System 
Database. 

9.14 U.S. EPA. Groundwater Remedies Selected at 
Superfund Sites. EPA 542-R-01-022. January, 
2002. http://clu-in.org 


9.15 U.S. EPA. Groundwater Pump and Treat 
Systems: Summary of Selected Cost and 
Performance Information at Superfund-financed 
Sites. EPA-542-R-01 -021 b. EPA OSWER. 
December 2001. http://clu-in.org 

9.16 MSE Technology Applications, Inc. Arsenic 
Oxidation Demonstration Project - Final Report. 
January 1998. http://www.arsenic.org/ 
PDF%20Files/M wtp-84.pdf 

9.17 Vendor information provided by MSE 
Technology Applications, Inc. 

9.18 HYDRO-Solutions and Purification. June 28, 
2001. http://www.mosquitonet.com/~hydro 

9.19 DPHE-Danida Arsenic Mitigation Pilot Project. 
June 28, 2001. 

http ://phy s4. harvard. edu/~ wi Ison/ 

2bucket.html. 

9.20 Environmental Research Institute. Arsenic 
Remediation Technology - AsRT. June 28, 

2001. http://www.eng2.uconn.edu/~nikos/ 
asrt-brochure.html 

9.21 A Simple Household Device to Remove Arsenic 
from Groundwater Hence Making it Suitable for 
Drinking and Cooking. June 28, 2001 
http://phys4.harvard.edu/~wilson/ 

asfilterl. html 

9.22 Appropriate Remediation Techniques for 
Arsenic-Contaminated Wells in Bangladesh. 

June 28, 2001. http://phys4.harvard.edu/ 
-wilson/murcott.html 

9.23 Redox Treatment of Groundwater to Remove 
Trace Arsenic at Point-of-Entry Water Treatment 
Systems. June 28, 2001 
http://phys4.harvard.edu/~wilson/Redox/ 
Desc.html 

9.24 U.S. EPA Office of Water. Arsenic in Drinking 
Water. August 3, 2001. http://www.dainichi- 
consul.co.jp/english/arsenic/treat 1 .htm. 

9.25 U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development. 
Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by 
Coagulation/Filtration and Lime Softening 
Plants. EPA/600/R-00/063. June, 2000. 
http://www.epa.gov/ncepi/Catalog/ 
EPA600R00063.html 

9.26 U.S. EPA and NSF International. ETV Joint 
Verification Statement for Chemical 
Coagulant/Filtration System Used in Packaged 
Drinking Water Treatment Systems. March, 
2001. 

9.27 FAMU-FSU College of Engineering. Arsenic 
Remediation. August 21, 2001. 
http://www.eng.fsu.edu/departments/civil/ 
research/arsenicremedia/index.htm 

9.28 U.S. EPA. Contaminants and Remedial Options 
at Selected Metal-Contaminated Sites. Office of 
Research and Development. EPA-540-R-95- 
512. July 1995. 


9-5 


9.29 E-mail attachment sent from Anni Loughlin of 
U.S. EPA Region I to Linda Fiedler, U.S. EPA. 
August 21, 2001. 

9.30 U.S. EPA. Arsenic & Mercury - Workshop on 
Removal, Recovery, Treatment, and Disposal. 
Office of Research and Development. EPA-600- 
R-92-105. August 1992. 

9.31 U.S. EPA. Profiles of Metal Recovery 
Technologies for Mineral Processing and Other 
Metal-Bearing Hazardous Wastes. December 
1994. 

9.32 Miller JP, Hartsfield TH, Corey AC, Markey 
RM. In Situ Environmental Remediation of an 
Energized Substation. EPRI. Palo Alto, CA. 
Report No. 1005169. 2001. 

9.33 Robins, Robert G. Some Chemical Aspects 
Relating To Arsenic Remedial Technologies. 
Proceedings of the U.S. EPA Workshop on 
Managing Arsenic Risks to the Environment. 
Denver, Colorado. May 1-3, 2001. 

9.34 E-mail from Bhupi Khona, U.S. EPA Region 3 to 
Sankalpa Nagaraja, Tetra Tech EM, Inc., 
regarding Groundwater Pump-and-Treat of 
Arsenic at the Whitmoyer Laboratories 
Superfund site. May 3, 2002. 

9.35 Hydroglobe LLC. Removal of Arsenic from 
Bangladesh Well Water by the Stevens 
Technology for Arsenic Removal (S.T.A.R.). 
Hoboken, NJ. http://www.hydroglobe.net. 

9.36 U.S. EPA. Arsenic Treatment Technology 
Design Manual for Small Systems (100% Draft 
for Peer Review). June 2002. 
http://www.epa.gov/ safewater/smallsys/ 
arsenicdesignmanualpeerreviewdraft.pdf 


9-6 


Table 9.1 

Arsenic Precipitation/Coprecipitation Treatment Performance Data for Arsenic 


a> 

4> 

3 

O 

C/5 






3 



41 



bJD 


< 

o 


b£ 

C/5 

0/ 


3 

u 



o 


■+■* 

*M« 

Cu 


EL 

u 


o 

o 


O 



k- 



Bu 




3 

+-» 

_o 

*3 

# o 

•— 

5. 

<4 

4— 


C/5 

c 

o 

U 

41 

u 

< 

CJ 

c 

0- 


o 



U 


o 

3 



O 


s 



4> 

C/3 

J- 

< 

+* 

3 

4. 

-4— 

3 



4) 


3 

4» 


3 

3 



© 


u> 

u 


4) 

3 


3 

_© 


41 



5/5 

3 



4, 


< 

'W 

S 


MM 

0/ 


3 

o 



3 


3 

© 

u 





C 



4> 

E 

3 

.© 

X 


3 

3 


z 

41 

© 


+* 

X 





in 




n 



4i 



3 



4* 



C/5 


M. 



O 

3 


O 

X 



4) 


3 

s 


4* 






C>i 



U 



o 

41 


Ut 

X 

>. 



H 


3 



X 



3 



*“* 




4, 


'J 

QJ 


o 

X 


—J 

o 

E 


L. 

3 


X 

z 


3 

© 

X 

3 

3 

OX 

3 

O 

u 

I 

3 

■5 

4/ 


O' 

<N 

O' 


— 

<u 

£ 

3 

4» 


X 

Q. 

4-. 

O 

bO 

c 


I 

. X 

.b o 

a 8 c 

, ^ o 

c T3 « 

E|«|Sg 
1^33 obc 


c c o 
<P O X 

3 


3 


o G c 
o 
qG 


, * rs X TZ: ” -n 

X o o "3 -3 i? 


o. <L> 
_ Q.X 
o C 


3 


'5b 

£ 

IT) 

o 

o 

o 

V 


jj 

~5b 

£ 

o 

o 

m 

o 


a. 

o 

•— 

x 


3 W 
£ 2 


!+G 

X 

5 


X 

O 


•a 
c 

u c 
a. •= 

C/3 ^ 


3 

P4 


4> 

*—* 

3 

£ 

-a 

c 

3 

o 

•— 

a 


x 

3 

3 

X 


00 

O' 


x "8 
£ 

>» o 

X — 

£ «S 


3 


3 

<L> 

£ 


a. _ 
o § 

41 3 

if 


qG 

>% 


X 

H 


a> 

</3 

X 

3 

a 


4> X 

a. O 

3 

C/3 


3 

U- 


a> 

-4—* 

c3 
£ 

<u 
o 

a ^ 

y o© 

C/3 


O 

o 

o 

© 

o 


C/3 

3 

_o 

~3 

30 


ob 

£ oo 
Ei ^ 

£ a 

<D 

£ £ 
O C/3 

3 3 

O 3 


D 


41 

0 / 

4 . 

a 

o 

U 

3 

O 

4 . 


t-~ 

<N 

O' 


3 

O 


03 ;>. C3 

.3 £ 3 
o. ~ 

4> 0) 

<u > <u 

v- > c 
3. O 3 
° 3= S- 

3 ^ £ 

O 4> 

a £ 


d oT 

g>3 

C <j 
in [— 

V ^ 


in 

O 

O 


in 33 
O £ 
O *“ 


o 

V 

o 

V 

X 


~5b 

J-J 

£ 

bb 

oo 

£ 

rn 

o 

1 

-—i 

m 

o 

l 

<N 

o 

o’ 


3 

X 


0 ) 
■♦—* 
03 

£ 

-o 

3 

3 

O 

l_ 

a 


4> 3 

~o O 


X .3 
1 — x 
a/ 

X 


Cl 

Oh 

3 


m 


(N 

m 

O' 


3 .2 3 

.2 £ .2 
3 £ 3 

.-3 u b 
.£- o — 

o 

<u x a> 

4. 3 

o- x £ 

o o 3 
3 o £ 

oxo 

— a £ 


'£b 

£ 

in 

o 

o 


X 

u. 

x' 

o 

3 

4) 

DQ 


3 

X 


l—i 

4) 

3 O 

£ a 

11 
O 3 
U* 'Tt 

o 


C/5 

c 

jd 

15 

bD 


c 

o 

+-* 

03 

4—> 

C/5 

X) 

P 

C/5 

•— 

<D 

£ 

o 

X 


>n 

O' 

in 

O' 


3 •£ 
'3 3 

3 r. . 


O 

'E 




2 x 


3 ^ 5 

g 03 

-> ■ . C/5 03 / 

O M'T w o .3 

C bi) -3 § 3 ‘C -3 

^ .2 -c ^ X.o 

gg«.fr 3 ss 

i- £ o x x 

H 8 £ o D .-3 

Q. X oo 
O 


o 


3 
O 
X 
,3 £ 
X 3 

i-S 

£ c 
3 


£ £ & 


3 ° 

3 C/3 

O -o 

3 


3 3 
c H 
3 X 

3 t- 


X 

3 

3 


3 

DQ 


3 < 

<d c/5 S 


3 

o 

o 


X jJ 

i © 
€ 2 
5 x 
fro 


3 

X 


O X 
3 O- 

I W) 

X 
3 

3 .. 

o m 


o 

X. 

O 


o 

o 

o 


bo 

3 

X 

£ 

3 

O 

£ 

5 

x 

U 


>n 


i 

O' 





































Table 9.1 

Arsenic Precipitation/Coprecipitation Treatment Performance Data for Arsenic (continued) 


<u 

w 

L 

3 

O 

C/3 


C 

on 

< "w 
oo <£ 
3 cu 
•-C o 

•*- x 
‘a. u 

« © 
<u 
l 
Cl 


Q 

LI 


3 

-L 

0 

*s 

a 

0) 


/ 

’3 

L 

0 

L 

CL 

< 


3 

t C 

"l 

3 

l. 

-L 

3 

o> 

cu 

3 

O 

U 


« 


•I I 

s ■*- 

V 

L 

< 3 

__ <U 
« « 
3 C 
© 


w s 

S .2 

Vi 3 

u* u 

< 3 

— o 

3 O 

•-S 3 

5 u 


l 

© 

« 5 
E ® 

3 3 

Z ° 
© 

3 J 

c/3 


_a» 

cu 

C/3 


L 


© 

.2 

CU 

LI 

■5 

co 

CU 

3 

> 

s 




<y 

l 

C/3 

!■« 

o © 
>> 0 " 
i H 

co 

3 

3 

3 


l “ 

<u £ 
a» X 

’© E 

^ Z 


oo 

d 


"O X 
a L 
3 R 

c 


3 

8 £ * 

- 5 H 

3 3 3 

3 0 0 

oo O L 

3 M 


C 

•£ 3 -O 

3 o £ 

o ■— 

“> M D 

M 3 C 
.. o o 
oo l ♦; 

r- L CO 

.5 ,a> <u 

o cl 3 

o- 


<o 

E | 

3 3 

So 5 P 

co C 
3 3 

o E 

S3 

a. 


O 3 

m ffl 


00 

c 

1 

3 


*o 

.. c L 

k o l 

<U B* X . L 

> O C/3 1 ,u 

— ^ 3 O X 

c/} [) <D • - 3 

^ *- CO .E 

< f— 


3 

<D 

E 

3 

a> 

i_ 

H 

■a 

3 

< 


D 

O 

•4—* 

c 

03 


3 

[X 


<u 

•4—* 

03 

£ 

"3 

3 

3 

O 

l 

o 


oo 


(D CO 

c/0 <U 

<L) +1 

n. « 

3 £ 


X 


oo 

ON 


-a 

a> 

o 

3 

3 

X 

3 

X 


3 

o 

-4—* 

f- & 

o * 

£ ^ 
.3 >> 
Q. X 

O "O 

a> <u 

-I 


X 

'So 

E 

t"- 

(N 

O 


X 

'Bo 

E 

V© 


•s * 

o < 

»\ 

3 3 

3 .3 

>S *r 
X 2 


_o 

CL 


a/ 


3 

.2 « 

° § 
<-> a 


00 

I 60 

E .£ c n 

E X .2 

<D 4-* 

g E > 

O co X 

— TO ° 
W 3 


3 


<U 3 


On 


3.2 3 

2 £ .2 

ca S ^ 
.3 <5 E 

з. O r— 

'o >. 

dj X i> 

и, r- 
D. T3 co 

O 3 

c o E 
o cc <u 

±: c 2 £ 


-J 

'Bo ^ 

E < 

° C. 

° W 

o 

V 


< 

H 


00 

E 


jO 

Ol 


o> 

3 

3 

3 

3 

O 

s_ 

o 


.•2 •§ 

O C3 

x .2 
' 1 

a> a. 

3C n. 

3 


oo 


X 

o^ 


+H 3 

0 X 0 


3 


3 -O 

O O _ 

3 ^ '5, 
3 o •- 

T3 — 


<2 


O -3 


o 

X 

Cl 


o 
<u 

L. 

o. 
o 
o 

5 3 

S2 2 

3 X 


O 

O 

CO 


2 0 ^ 


O 

fO 

00 

oc" 


X 

r- Cl 
o X 
oo q 3 

9 h 

oo 2. ^ 

E *o -J 

§> 
o c 


00 ^ 
OO CL 

H 

~ o 

O ' 

o 

O 3- 

(N *Q 

O O 


rn 

o 

o 

t 

r- 

o 

o 


s-J 

"oo 


nJ 

'Bo 

E 

>n 

X 

(N 

(N 


Ssj 

.2 « 'v . 

3 <■ © ’£ 

rl 

S 5 


_o 

CL 


a> 

3 

E « 

? i 

< 


00 

3 

3 

I 

<U 

■— 

o 

"3 

<u 


ON. 


X 

ON 


4- >> 3 

0X0 


3 


3 "O 
O <L> _ 

3 ^ "5. 

3 o • — 

•3 ^ 

X 

o 


o 

-4—» 

o 

X 
CL 


3 

0 

co 

t- 

3 


o 

u 

Li 

a. 

o 

o 

3 

o 


U 

H 


-J 

'Bb 

E 


i-j 

'Bb 

E 

Cn| 

m 

d 

V 


-J 

'Bb 

E 

ON 

rn 

3- 


m 

nj 

3- 


= 22 

.2 « *5 . 

2 c" w ’E 
5 1 ff| 

© O c 

S ^ 2 


_o 

i£ 


o 

L* 

CO 

3 

O 


O 

Ll L 

3 ___ 

X <D 

3 O 
<U •- 

X c 


co 

3 

"O 

<U 

3 

C3 


3 

a> 

L 

3 

"3 

co 

O 

3- 

co 


00 

3 


3 


co . 

CO 
CO 

<u o 
d. O 
2 O 


10 

V 

a 

o 

© 

L 

Cu 


3 


CJ 

a* 

L 

CL 

3 

0 / 

£ 

’o 

CD 

a. 

CO 

a 

3 

L 

o 

L 

a/ 

x 


3 

L 

3 

a> 

E 

3 

© 

’> 

3 

u 


ON 

r- 

O' 

ON 

cK 

O'" 

3 

3 


X 0 

0 

-3 O 



cd • — 

.$5 C3 

c3 

.2 3 

3 x 


3 -L 

C ^ 

0 .£■ 

_D- 

g .£- 

X O 

O 

x 0 

U £ 

a> 

u- 

U £ 

X 

X 

X 

1 

1 

| 

1 

1 

lJ 

X 

X 

'oo 

Bb 

'Bb 

E 


E 

fN 

(N 

0 

(N 



0 

d 

-— 

d 

V 

d 

X 


X 

*00 

X 

^b 

E 

00 

£ 

£ 


0 



0 



•— 


d 


0 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

, 

. 

, 

3 

3 

3 

X 

X 

X 


U, 


•3 X 

<u 

■3 X 

3 a> 


3 <L> 

c2 « 


£ tS 

S3 ^ 
2- S 

-0 

3 

S3 ^ 
x E 

3 cz) 


3 c/i 

C/3 « 

O 

C/3 « 

= ^ 

6 

= B 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 


Cn| 

rn 


































Table 9.1 

Arsenic Precipitation/Coprecipitation Treatment Performance Data for Arsenic (continued) 


Source 

9.17 

9.8 

9.15 

9.15 

9.15 

9.15 

Precipitating Agent 
or Process' 

Reductive 
Precipitation 
(additional 
information not 
available) 

In-situ treatment of 
arsenic-contaminated 

groundwater by 

injecting oxygenated 

water 

Treatment train 

consisting of metals 

precipitation, 

filtration, UV 

oxidation and carbon 

adsorption 

Treatment train 

consisting of air 

stripping, metals 

precipitation, 

filtration, and ion 

exchange 

Treatment train 

consisting of metals 

precipitation, 

filtration, and carbon 

adsorption. 

Metals precipitation 

followed by filtration 

Precipitate 

Arsenic 

Concentration 

I 

l 

I 

l 

J 

l 

l 

I 

I 

I 

l 

Final Arsenic 
Concentration 

<0.010 mg/L 

! 

l 

1 

1 

l 

I 

l 

! 

Initial Arsenic 
Concentration 

100 mg/L 

j 

l 

1 

l 

l 

i 

I 

i 

i 

Site Name or 
Location 

! 

Peterson/Puritan 
Inc. Superfund 
Site-OU 1, 
PAC Area, RI 

Greenwood 
Chemical 
Superfund Site, 
Greenwood, VA 

Higgins Farm 
Superfund Site, 
Franklin 
Township, NJ 

Saunders Supply 
Company 
Superfund Site, 
Chuckatuck, VA 

Vineland 
Chemical 
Company 
Superfund Site, 
Vineland, NJ 

Scale 3 

Full 

Full 

Full 

Full 

Full 

Full 

Waste or 
Media 

Groundwater 

Groundwater 

Groundwater, 
65,000 gpd 

Groundwater, 
43,000 gpd 

Groundwater, 
3,000 gpd 

RCRA waste 
code K031, 

1 mgd 

Industry or Site 
Type 

I 

I 

Chemical 

manufacturing 

wastes, 

groundwater 

Chemical 

manufacturing 

Waste disposal 

Wood preserving 

Herbicide 

manufacturing 

Project 

Number 


m 

VO 

r~- 

00 

On 



















Table 9.1 

Arsenic Precipitation/Coprecipitation Treatment Performance Data for Arsenic (continued) 


a t 
u 

•— 

s 

© 


c 

a> 

oo 

< ^ 

00 <2 

C 

•S © 
cs 

a s- 

w ® 
a> 

s- 

OU 


© 


5 .a « 

C s- 

6 <u "S 

■— c/5 — 

w S- © 

S- ^ c 

0 - O 

u 


•1 § 
5 X 

~L +* 

< c 
_ a> 

85 a 
c s 


a c 
*e .2 

Si « 

>- •_ 

< c 

4> 

3 y 

'■C c 
*3 o 

5 U 


u 

o 

g -2 

z S 

5 J 

(A 


ji> 

”3 

o 

C /) 




o 

.2 

© 

— 

■5 

C/5 

a> 


s 


w © 
o> X 

•S 5 E 

^ z 


Nt 

ro 

ON 


T3 

C 

3 


ON 

1-2 

I l£. 


3 ■£ 

N _2 
— 3 

CO O 

-t © 

3 O . 

<l> c: a 
Z .£ 


oo 

s 

C/3 

3 

<U 


X 

"go 

E 

>n 

04 

O 


X 

'5b 

E 

o 

o 


<D 

. m +; 

« .2 oo 
0*0-0 
e to i 

*zj O u. 
~ X <u 
>3 0. 

^ X 3 
00 


3 

X 


<L> 

c5 

£ 

T3 

C 

3 

O 

s- 

a 


E 

a. 

oo 

o 

o 

I 

o 

in 


4^ 


-a 


C/3 

hi) 

17) 


<L> 

-o 

3 

03 

O 

XJJ 

C 



HH 

3 

4—» 

’ C 

© 

u 

C/5 

© 

a 

b 

03 

*c 

C/5 

aj 

> 

*—* 

D 

11 

o 

03 

p 

4—» 

o 

c2 

3 

3 


11 

"5 


3 

■o 

3 


4—* 

11 

> 

■a 

3 

03 

JZ 

a, 

3 

£ 


o 

04 


w 

0 / 

•— 

a 

© 

U 

c 

© 

•— 


0 / 

*» 

£ 

00 

C 

12 

s 

‘u 

Q 


r- 

<x 


<u 

4-* 

o "o 
S N g? 

L- 3 

t a. jo £ 
r; • — u 
O 3 (C 
O 

C/3 

O o 
a 

£ 


o 


H 


P-4 1) <D 

a. £ 


t— 

X 

£ 


GO 

E 

>n 

V 


fcj 

'5b ^-v 

E < 

o ^ 

s B 

o 

o 


fcj 

"5b ^ 

E < 

ro i> 

° c 

r4 t~ 


3 

X 


"O 


<L> 

4-» 

3 

£ 00 
ob £ 

• S x 
x: 

c r “ l 


04 


cK 


c 

o 

4—* 

f \ CC 

t 

<u o 
Lu a/ 

a. 

o 

o 


H 

W 


'5b 

E 

in 

V 


'5b ^-v 

E < 

m ^ 
“ h- 
o ^ 
o 


(J 

"5b ^ 

E < 

in > 
oo r 

C 

o 


3 

U. 


1 ) 

4-* 

> T3 

> 00 
ob £ 

J- 

c ” 


n 

r^4 


oo 


On 


O 

o 

c 

o 

!— 

-a 

a/ 

o 

c 

3 

3 

UJ 


C 

_o 

’3 

3 


C 

o 
■*—» 
3 


X) 

T3 

<U 

I 


'Sb 

£ 

>n 

o 

o 

o 

V 


t-J 

'Sb 

£ 

o 

r~ 

m 

o 


-O J5 
3 o 

° h 
£ 


x 

4—* 

c3 

~ 

a 

o 


U 


y; 

< 


Q. 

3 

ca 


3 

u. 


<u 

4—* 

03 

£ 

00 

c 

12 

c 


m 

Cn| 


in 
04 
ON 


-a x £ -a 

© .ti c c 

^ ^ = « 

o „ .£ & 

” 3 <U C 

x .2 S .> o 

r -4— 4_, J ♦.— 1 

3-2 3 3 

O 3 -a "x3 i3 

'■P 00 c 3 ,3 

3 3 ^ 

g ° 3 ^ 

O X 2 X 


00 ^ 
x x a. 
oo° J 
£ *“ U 
o 9 H 

So o _j 


x <=> 
o V 
oo 


00 

£ 


X 

o 

o 

<=> X 

' ~5b 

OO r- 

O c 

O 

O 


04 

O 

o 

t 

X 

04 

o 

o 

o 


X 

~5b 

E 


3 

X 


<U 

4—* 

3 -o 
^ 00 

oo £ 
,S o 
x o 

3 X 


NCf 

04 


«n 

0-4 

a< 


_ 3 73 

,+J 3 « § 

I -| gi 

5 3 .£ 


3 


£ C 
H •- ° O 

X -a x x 

as x 3 ca 

- 3 “ 3 ^ 

3 c T3 <L» r3 

oo ca u p X 

ca c/i 3 

O £ 3 -t— t 

u 2 


"O 

<D 

C/5 


3D _ 

t CL 
oo — X 
E“U 
ro S 5 b 

ON oo 

Nt x X 
' o 
m ■ 

On 
04 


00 

E 


oo 

o 

o x 
' 00 
in £ 

o 

o 

o 


ON 

ro 

n4 

o 


m 

c 


X 

~5b 

E 


3 

X 


ao 

4-* 

3 "O 
$ 00 

So 2 

3 in 

12 04 

.£ 

'C 

Q 


m 

0-4 


o 

ON 


"O 

3 

3 

3 

O 


3 

O 


CL) 

12 

'2 

o 


3 -O o 

o 
<u 


o .S--® 

Lo O 3 

-o a> o 

< D. ■- 

o 

o 


m 04 

o — 
o o 

O X o' X 
< |cd |> 

3 3 ~ 

3 ^ 

X X 


04 

O 


ON 
Nt 

o 
X O 

1 “ 

_3 

X 


X 

"5b 

E 


3 

X 


I— 

1 » 

3 

00 

3 

12 

3 


X 

04 


X 

04 

ON 


3 .2 
.2 ta 

■<-> t. 
3 X 

3 

00 4_ 

3 O 

o <u 
<o» X 

3 -O 

P 30 


X 

'Sb 


> 


E u 

04 £ 

O 0/ 

c £ 

O < 

V ^ 


X 


a j 

4—* 

03 

£ 

00 

3 

3 


r- 

04 
































Table 9.1 

Arsenic Precipitation/Coprecipitation Treatment Performance Data for Arsenic (continued) 


4* 

CJ 

s_ 

3 

O 

c n 


s 

o> 

ex 

< °c* 
OX £ 
3 CJ 

fa ® 

03 *■* 

•— ft* 
‘a. 

'G © 

4> 

im 

Cl, 


o 


« .a « 

.fa C - 

a ai -g 
— ^ so 
u b <u 
a> o 

ft* o 

U 


w 5 

e ® 

cu "2 
1_ fc* 
< C 

_ 4) 

c c 
•= o 
fa CJ 


-- s 

c .2 

<y *- 
U) 5d 

- — 

< 3 

"« tj 

fa c 

5 U 


'm. 

O 

2 o 
S Z3 
93 53 

z ° 

r o 

2 fa 

£ 


_o 

"3 

cj 

C/3 


s- 

O 5d 

2 =3 

C /5 41 

03 


O 

•*-« 

33 

S-. 

C 

>> 

»— 

fa- 

3 

■c 

C 


41 

a 


i- 

O a> 

3 .o 

'o’ E 
)r s 
^ Z 


>n 

rn 

a 1 


c 

o 

-t—> 

5 >- 

I O —! 

o ‘-5 fa 

r j 3 
.fa Sn 
r ax 


CJ fa 

cj <u 

& z 

o 


60 

-X 

'Si) 

E 

fa- 

os 


fa 

'So 


<n 

o 


m 

o 

o 

V 


fa 

'Si) 

E 

Os 

in 

o 

I 

oo 

<N 


X 

3 


CCS 


CCS 

fa „ 

DQ c« 


fa 

c/5 

£P 'S* -a 

£ 3 
03 •— 

00 

c 

3 
00 


3 

4) _ 

2 H 


_o 

fa 


<u „ 

fa-* C/5 

o3 C 

£ o 

gp "3 

C 60 
fa m 


00 

CN 


3 

00 

3 

E 

<u 

fa 

o 

co 

4) 

E 


ox 

c 

s 

4> 

fa 

o 

(/) 

4) 

E 

fa 

1 

La 

41 
•—< 
53 


OX 

C 

12 

.S 

’3 

Q 


r- 

Os 


fN 

O 

A 

X 

fa 


00 


fa 


£ o 

v b 


fa 

'So ^ 
E < 


m 

o 

o 

o 

V 


H 


3 

«s O 

c/5 .z; c 

•£ 3 £ 
.fa 0 o 
fa fa c 

CJ fa fa 

face 

in fa 


3 

fa 


4> 

-4—* 

03 

£ 

60 

C 

12 

c 


OS 

fN 


»n 

<N 

OS 


fa 

4» 60 

^ .E 
o c 

fa 4) 
.O fa 
e- O 


c 1/5 

O 4) fa 

.11 
12 “ § 
X >s 


60 

'Si) fa 
E gP 


rn — 
in 
cn 

o 
fa 


fa 
>n U 

o fa 
o v - 

V 


m 

m 

o 

o fa 

I 60 
m £ 
so 
o 
o 


OS 

fa- 

00 

o 

o 

I 

O' 

in 

o 

o 


fa 

'So 

E 


3 

fa 


4) 

•4—* 

5 fa 
> 60 
60 £ 
•E o 

fa fa. 
c 


o 

m 


C/3 

E 

«J 

4— 

!/3 

X. 

cn 

4* 

fa 

fa 

o 

1 


o 

fa 

I 

h 

4* 

*-< 

53 

£ 

OX 

c 

12 

c 

*3 

Q 


(N 

fN 

Os 


60 

C 


fc d 


3 60 c« 

O g O 

os .S3 


“ ^ o q © 


O X) .3 


3 '£ 

C «« 
O ^ 
C 


cd •- 
C 3 


■£ fa cd 

2 E 
o. > « 

'3 — E 
2 'o 'S fa - o 

C/5 


•2 ^ 
-4—* 7 ^ 

3 T-5 


SO 

m 

o 

o fa 

I 60 

m £ 
<N *“ 
O 

o 


o 

fN 

O fa 

I 60 
fN £ 
Os 
O 


4> CJ 

'C 

cd *; 
oo 


fa .3 OJ 

> Q ■§ 


c 

cd 


cd 


60 

C 


S- C/3 £ 

cd 03 
3 


fa 


_o 

ifa 


4) 

cd 

si 

60 

C 

12 

c 


m 


fN 

fN 

O' 


4) 

r- *-> fa 

•S 'fa 2 

•> o ^ 
^ Z o 

c CJ — 

o 0,0 

M Z Cu 
3 fa 

■ x E 


r. C 
60 5 
.£ 'fa 
x 

E 3 


p £ >> 

S 3 -c 


4> .3 


g 5 


fa 

C 

3 

c 

_o 

+-* 

3 

c 

4> 

E 

•5 

4) 

C/5 


c 


fa 

Sn 

•a 

n 

' 4 —* 

3 

X 

3 

w 

■ 4 —» 

cd 

* £ 

3 

4 » 

fa 

4 > 

3 

3 

J- 

■ 4 —* 

E 3 

3 


0 

> 

fa S 
3 

j 6 ; 

3 

60 

_o 

"0 

+-* 
3 
—. 

3 

0 

Is. 

3 

3 

C4—( 

E 

4 ) 

E 

O- 

0 

4 > 

fa 

3 

-5 

23 

U 

3 

4 » 

C /5 


fa 

'So 

E 

o 

rn 

o 


fa 

'So 

E 

o 

o 

m 

o 


3 

60 

S .2 

00 fa 
^ c 
^ — 

C /5 

4) 

£ 


_o 

fa 


4> 

3 

60 

C 

12 

_c 

’C 

Q 


ns 

m 


Os 


Os 


fa 


,fa 

'So 

E 

>n 

o 

o 

V 


fa 

~So 

E 

SO 

O 

1 

m 


• fa C/5 

fa U 

2 fa 

1§ — 

3 60 
O 3 
/ 3 
^ 00 


_o 

fa 


L- 

4) u. 

fa o 
3 rv 

^ ^ s 

c '*—* 

12 — 

3 O 
fa fa 
Q 


m 

m 


Os 






































Table 9.1 

Arsenic Precipitation/Coprecipitation Treatment Performance Data for Arsenic (continued) 


© 

© 

L. 

s 

o 

C/2 


c 

© 

©C 

< **» 
©D © 
C © 
!= O 

55 J“ 

X 

a s- 

© ® 
© 

im 

Om 


© 

•— 


© 

.a 

■fc- 

’E 

a 



✓ 

‘3 

L. 

© 

S— 

X 

< 


55 

L. 

a 

© 

© 

c 

o 

U 


y S 
e * 
© — 

</> p 

»5 i 
< c 

_ a* 

§ I 

X Q 


2 c 

c .2 

§£ « 

v- «_ 

< fi 

— © 

55 © 

*•3 c 
•= c 
£ U 


l. 

© 

a» 

E 

55 

z 

a* 

<73 


55 

© 

© 

-J 


_© 

55 

© 

C/2 


L. 

© 55 

£ ^ 
z © 
55 5 

£ S 


© 

■i— 

55 

■■ 

© © 


- 

© © 
© X! 

•o’ E 
*- 3 

z 


vO 

<N 

O'" 


X "g 
♦-> c 

i w 

C "O 

o -c 
s o 

53 — 


H fc 

CL. 


^ 5 
‘C 3 

O 33 


O 

o TT 

CL >' 
>, X> 
-O 

E > 

= o 
■a 33 

O O 
c/3 Cl 


cn 

■'t 

ro 

o 

o nJ 
> ©0 
<N £ 

© 

o 

o 


vO 

■'fr 

<=> J 

' 'So 

0 s r-“ 

o ~ 

X 

o 


© .2 .ti 
= = 3^ 
-S § 43 M 


H E £ 


o 

s— 

Q. 

C/D 


H 

D 


© 
4—> 

03 

£ 


c 

C5 


_o 

X 


© C 

-*-* 55 

C5 CL 
£ ©X) 

©0 —. 
3 —, 

£ A 
s H 


553 


(N 

O' 


©0 

>v -| 
X) N 

3 ^ 

.2 x 

3 ® 

1 > ^ 

. C— 4 —* 

CL « 

O ^ 
© o 

£ E 

,© 


-o 
•a E 

© 53 

£ 3 


• COO 


© 

C5 

"O 

C 

C5 


.O 55 .2 


55 


„ C 
— <U 
3 P ^ 

g .5 cc 

Ef T3 
© 

C/5 


£ 


C 
<L> 

jT 


55 

©X) 

C 55 
© .2 
QQ "O 

X 

C/1 ~ 

© 


_o 

£ 


(U u. 
<D 


50 

L- X 
(U C5 


©X) 

■ S *J T3 
£ — 

C O 
- C <N 

Q 


cn 

r^i 


©JD 

C 

‘5 

a t 

C 

o 

C/2 

a» 

E 

£ 


r<3 

a-’ 


<D 

rs 

’x 

o 

1— 

T3 

>, 

r- 

E 

3 

'o 

55 

u 


£ 

©X) r i H 

E ^ u 


§ S 

IT) (— 


H 


©X) 

E 


55 

u 


-j 

< 

< 

^i) 



E ^ 

(— 

t— 

O 4C 



° ^ 

-j 

j 

*? t 

'©0 

*©b 


E 

£ 

ID 


Tf 

O 

vO 


rn 


-J 
'exj 
E _ 
o < 

- t— 


Ov 

O' 

rn 


^ 65 

c/3 ’■£ 

£ o 

L— — 

55 

SZ 

U 


3 

Pu 


00 

o 


<L> 
•*—* 
C3 

£ 

<D 

4—» 

CO 

c3 


C3 

c ® 
’C o 
<U 03 

« E 

> 55 
sz 

CL 


vO 

r<3 


O' 


5J 

<U 

i— 

CL 

<U 

E 

u 



3 

0 


>> 

03 


XI 

■0 

■*—* 
cs 

4-> 

’a. 

X) 

-a 

c 

_o 

c 

0 

© 

E 

© 

*o 

<D 

© 

• 

03 

4—* 

■*—» 
03 

_o 

E 

p- 

O- 

_o 

£ 

<D 

4 —» 

"0 

-o 

© 

"0 

E 

^4—. 

U—> 

CO 

E 


•5 




□ 


OJ 

CO 



< 

H 

'©b 

E 

(N 


3 

PL 


a> 

4 —* 

<D 

4-4 

CO 

03 

£ 


r- 

rn 


O' 


c 

o 


< 

H 

;-J 

'©0 

E 

<N 


3 

Pu 


a/ 

4—* 

03 

£ 

a> 

CO 

03 

£ 


00 

f<3 


rn 

O' - 




© 





£ 

"O 

c 

03 

- E 

© 

CO 

0 

0 

O' 

< 

'©0 

E 

"x 

£ 

03 

<U 

c3 

c 

p- 

03 

E 

v© 

1 

O 

©0 

*n 

r- 

0 

H 

X 

0 

D 

CO 

p- 

03 

3 

^© 

O 

O' 

P»5 

'©0 

3 

1 

<N 

X 



3 

© 


3 

d> 



C/1 

53 c5 
O .2 


• 5 a 
2 E 
x < 
03 


3 

X 


OJ 

4—» 

03 

£ 

D 

4—* 

CO 

C3 

£ 


ON 

rn 





























Table 9.1 

Arsenic Precipitation/Coprecipitation Treatment Performance Data for Arsenic (continued) 


it 

u 

u 

3 

O 

in 


3 

<u 

SO 

< °</> 

C£ £ 
3 U 

•-C £ 

5 e- 

3. - 

*5 * 

4> 

i_ 

o. 


o 


«s .a « 

•- 3 s- 

a. « 

•— t /2 C 

V S_ <U 
O ^ V 

ft- c 

u 


« 5 
3 -2 
at "ft 
£ 2 
■; •*■> 
< s 
_ at 

= 5 

ft- (j 


•- S 

b .2 

Ot 

c /2 3 

S- !_ 

< 3 

— a/ 

3 U 
ft 3 

-5 5 


i_ 

O 

o> 5 

3 ® 

OS CS 

Z 0 

^ c 

S J 

35 


5> 

"os 

at 

cn 


i. 

© 3 

2 ? 


3 

£ 


4> 

C7> 

u 

® & 

i h* 
«« 

3 

■o 

3 


*- »- 
o <u 
3 a 

'c 5 E 
*- = 

Z 


ro 

o' 


<g 

.3 

■4—* 

3 

C/2 

<L> 

c/2 

<U 

3 

3 

BO 

3 

3 


so _ r- 
ft ft ft- 

| < b 
k b 

ft 3 


< 

£ 

H 


<u 

c/2 O 

S * 

3 


3 


SO 

3 


3 
3 
<U 
>2 ^ 
3 <~sj 
ON 


SO 


m 

(N 


< 

£ 

H 


CJ c 3 

C/3 ^ 

« o 

i— — 

3 

ft 

u 


3 

ft 


ft 

SC 

O 


0 ) 

ft-* 

03 

£ 

<D 

ft-* 

C/D 

CS 

£ 


CS 

b-a 

3 ^ 
.3 <U 
t- O 
<U 3 

a> E 

> £ 


c 

ft 


o 

<n 

o' 


•S "3 

_T • CS 

C £ „ 

-2 *3 ~ « G 

ft .2 0^.2 

•© E 3 3 2 

3 O C/2 £3 

T3 -E '5. >- ~ 

-3 O .ft <u ft 

O o. 

<L> Q. 


O 

< 


s. 8 


V? 

o x 

SC 

O 

o 


o 

u 3 

<u 

C/2 


as 

> 

in o 8 

o ft* 


3 

o 


sq r- -2 3 

S3 § 1 1 •§ 

>, X • c § = 

r » ft ft 


3 at 
ft c 

w vs 


rr\ — a 

ffl O 0 

u 


3 

U- 


■5 

-o 

3 


d> 

OS 


3 

u 

ft 


■*—* 
0 


E 

0 

E 

0 

ft 

O 

(U 

JS 

d) 

CS 

JJ 

d) 

-«—• 

E 

O 

C/5 

-0 

3 

3 

<u 

•— 

0 

3 

3 

-♦—* 
3 

3 

JS 

ft 

3 

-4—1 

d> 

-4—* 

cs 

ft 

<u 

ft 

3 

c 

0 

'cs 

Q 

'-2 

C/D 

•4—• 

c 

O 
r H 

a j 
> 

so 

0 

O 

a 

CS 

> 

ft 

0 

O 

J- 

ft 

0 

3 

d) 

a. 


O 

O 

< 

ft 

cS^ 

CS 

cS 

d) 

d> 

-4—* 

L- 

3 

’n 

so 


V 

— 





—] 

ft 

D. 



BO 

1/2 .S 
B $ 

o> i> 
■ft 0 

S P 


o 

m 

o' 


3 

o 


£ "3 
3 - u 


o 

E 


o .2 
— ' 4 "" •*—• 
03 


- 3 3 

- _ <u ^ on 

_ O .ft OJ ft 
O U 0. 

< jja 

8 


4> O 
> ft 

8 B 
OJ 
ft- 


cS 


o x 

oc 

OS 


03 


C/D 

c 


CS 

-T3 

cs 

C 

CS 


DD’U o n 
c/D cs c 
cs c £ 

X cs 


E- 


3 


BO 

3 

3 c 

c o 

§1 

is O 

O ^ 
fU 


o 

3 


1 ) 


c 

3 JS 

O -5 

E > 

3 CS 


c /2 .3 


so 

3 


3 


c /2 

1/2 


a5 <u 

-3 O 


(N 

ft 


3 

_o 
"ft 
3 
—« 

‘ 5 . 

*3 

o 

•_ 

Q. 

O 

U 

3 

3 

i- 


rn 

o’ 


§ ft 

. ZZ, -4—* 

1 •& 1 2 

x -ft o 
o 0) •— 1/2 

- ^ 3 0 

§ J2 •£. fc 

3 13 O 
4) Oi 

ft 

U ^ 


-J 

'so 

E 

sD 

O 

1 

(N 

O 

o 

V 


< 

H 


so 

E 

<n 

sc 

1 

o 

o’ 

sC 


< 

£ 

E— 


3 

3 3 

.2 5 

3 

z 


u 


<u 

4—* 

CS 

£ 
as 
-*—* 

C/D 

CS 

£ 


o 

E 

o 


*- s 

o 4) r- 

0 > ft 
60 u O 
3 0 0 — 
“ 3 Q ft 

« ^ c_ 

„ 3 3 

8 g » 


x> 

ft 

3 


rn 

ft 


ro 

o 


a> 

,s 

cm 

o 


<L> 

u. 


so 


ft 

sxj ft cT 

3 < E _J 


o > 

ft o 

W -ft 

o c 


u 

h- 


c 

sc 

in 

o 

I 

(ft 


< 

£ 
H 

ft 

o E 


O ft 


ft 
'so 
- < 

- E— 

I 


U « 

C/2 > 

J2 o 

•_ — 

3 

ft 

U 


3 

ft 


ft 

sc 

o 


o 

•4—* 

cs 

d) 

—< 

C/D 

CS 


b 

CS 
C 
C 
d) 
■*—* 
d) 

> 


CS 

o 
•*—» 
Z5 
d) 
d) 
cs 

E 

— 

CS 

r— 

O- 


T ^ 


1 

Os 





































Table 9.1 

Arsenic Precipitation/Coprecipitation Treatment Performance Data for Arsenic (continued) 


0 / 

CJ 

s_ 

3 

O 

C/5 



4-* 



3 



O 



CX 

cJ 

C^ 


< 


DX 

C/3 

o 


3 

CJ 


T3 

o 


cc 

4-4 

On 


a 



13 

c 


CJ 



u 



0. 




3 

QJ 

4-4 

c« 

4-» 

C 

# o 

4 I 4 

cc 

a 

CJ 

4-4 


C/3 

c 


*— 

CJ 

0/ 

< 

QJ 

3 

x 


O 



u 


o 

s 



0 


c 

CJ 

C/3 

5-« 

< 

• — 
4-4 

c« 

u 

4-4 

C 



CJ 


3 

QJ 


3 

3 



O 


X 

u 


CJ 

3 


"E 

_C 


CJ 

4-4 


C/3 

3 


s- 

—— 


< 

4-4 

c 


— 

Qj 


3 

CJ 


4-4 

3 


3 

O 

u 


— 



O 



CJ 

E 

3 

6 

*X 


3 

3 


z 

QJ 

O 


Qj 

4-4 

— 





cn 




e: 



CJ 



3 



CJ 



C/5 





c 

3 


QJ 

'W 

X 


C/3 

CJ 


3 

s 


CJ 



4-4 



C/5 



•- 



O 

CJ 


L. 

X 

>. 


4-4 

C/3 

H 


3 



X 



c 







c- 


QJ 

O 


CJ 

X 


"o’ 

E 



3 



Z 


qj 

CJ 

u 

0 - 

x 

cj 

;x 

"o 

cj 

a. 

C/5 

3 

D 

u. 

o 

— 

0 / 


•'Cf 

cK 


c 

o 


X 
C 

4_i r, 3 

O >, C 
3 X) O C 

« ' s ° 
u- <U _ 

^ ^ ‘a. - 
o •— c 
o <u 


S -a 

C3 c3 


03 

o 


E 

qj 

x 

U 


c2 


QJ 

u. i_ 

^x 

QJ 

C/3 


< 

=J H 
60 

p aj 
- 60 
oc g 
. QJ 
° £ 


(J 

'So 

4< 

ro > 

i 


c 

V 


3 

X 


QJ 

—i 

3 

£ 

QJ 

■*— 

C/3 

3 


C/~3 

'Cf 


O' 


.2 x 

3 '3 

.-3 or 

a. x 

QJ c/3 

QJ X 

M • — 

^ o 

b “ 

3 X 

I * 

CL 


3 

-4—» 

03 

— 

03 

a 

<u 

CD 


*bb o 
£ < 
- ^ 
oo H 


H 

"Bo 

£ 

r~~ 

x 


3 

X 


QJ 

3 

£ 

QJ 

-4—> 

CD 

03 

£ 


QJ 

■4—* 

C/3 

03 

£ 

x 

QJ 

N 


C 

QJ 

E 


C/3 

3 

3 X 
03 QJ 3 
X +-> 

3 

QJ 

u 


NO 

x 


NO 

CT 


.2 X 
3 ’3 
X a* 
a. x 


X 

QJ 

£ 

o 


C/3 

X 


c 3 
O 


o 

b “ 

52 ■£ 

I '£ 


c 

o 

-4—* 

3 

s- 

3 

cu 

QJ 

C/3 


X 

c 

o 

QJ 

QJ 

C/3 

>4 

X 


X — 03 


3 c/3 

X X 
Q- X 

o Q 

aj ^ 


03 

X 

QJ 

C/3 


'5/j 


X r> 

X f— 

CN w 


'Bo 


r~~ 

in 


3 

X 


QJ 

3 

£ 

QJ 

CD 

03 

£ 


0 ) 

-4—» 

C/3 

03 

£ 


b 


c 

QJ . 

QJ C C/3 

N X 3 

3 03 X 

rape 


C 

QJ 

U 




X 

<x 


o 

2 X QJ 
B 5 ^ 

X cx o 
O. X x 

— t/3 o2 

X 

Q. 

b 

E 


qj 

QJ 


o 

CD 


•4—* 

i 


c 
_o 
’•*—* 
03 


b 

3 

X 

c 

o 

QJ 

QJ 

C/3 

>3 

X 


X 

X x 

£ 72 c 


3 

or 


03 c/3 

X X 

a. x 

o 

QJ 


C/3 


3 tX 

2 3 

•i—* - ~ 

3 X 

3 r- 

x E 

QJ X 
C/3 - 

3 

E 


* t 

60 H 

o 


< 

£ 

H 

t-4 

'Bo 

E 

r-~ 

x 


3 

X 


QJ 

3 

£ 

QJ 

•4—* 

CD 

03 

£ 


<L> 

•4—* 

C/3 

03 

^ E > 

U P to 
N X 3 
X 3 X 

S £.E 

3 

QJ 

u 


oo 

X 


X 

O' 


c/3 

C/3 X 

3 -T 

QJ 

QJ C/3 

3 

3 

O 


3 

O 

3 

Q. 

3 

X 

QJ 

C/3 


C/3 

X 


3 3 


• 2 -a 


QJ 

> 

*X 3 
QJ X X 

_QJ CL X 

^ E a - 

C/5 Qj • — 



0 

X 3 3 


b 

CQ 

CD 

« -S..ST 

J- O- — 

C 

_o 

X 

c 

c 

0 

3 X ' 

8- g 3 

1/5 X 0 

•4—* 

03 

L+ 

0 

0 

• 4 —» 
03 

CQ 

Cl 

0 

C/3 

- 4 —* 

"a. 

1 bx 

a j 

CD 


'qj 

f-1 § 



QJ 



V- 

CL 

QJ 

- 4 —* 



"Bo 

E < 


o 

o 


H 


< 

H 

~Bo 

E 

r-' 

x 


3 

X 


QJ 

•4—* 

03 

QJ 

•4—» 

C/3 


CJ 

CD 

03 

£ 

x 

QJ 

N 


3 

QJ 

E 


C/3 

3 

3 X 

3 QJ 3 

q- Q- ■— 

3 

QJ 

CJ 


ON 

X 



























Table 9.1 

Arsenic Precipitation/Coprecipitation Treatment Performance Data for Arsenic (continued) 


o 

u 

3 

O 

C/1 


Os 

Os 


Os 

O^ 


Os 

Os 


On 

Os 


m 

o^ 


o 

rn 

o^ 


rn 

Os 


Os 


Os 

Os' 


c 

4/ 

CD 

< 

C£ 

C 

*-C 

3 


u 

4/ 

u 

S- 


-o 

a> 

-t—t 

CO 

55 C 

C/3 O 

ro •- 

>3 03 

Si 

3 

o ’C 

g - 
£ ° 
Xi 

O 


c 

73 -2 


£ 'B. 

<D . 2 * 

x! o 
U £ 
a. 


03 

O 

£ 

a> 

X 


"O 

c 

3 

C 

o 


3 3 

-+-» j-i 


U -3 « 
o 

V-. 

X 


T3 

u 

■+-* 

C/3 

‘55 § 

C/5 .2 
03 'd 

^ g 

03 Sp 

° Ss 

C o 
<U 
X 


T3 

C 

03 

C 

o 


~a 

c 

03 


C 

o 


03 

CJ 


<U 

X 

U 


03 03 

•*—* 5— 

'5. r£ 

o ^ 
4> 


c S 

_ o o 

E § 1 
o *3 « 

<U 


-o 

c 

03 

03 C C 

O o o 


33 

s 2 


E 

<d 

X Q_ 

^ o 
<u 


U 


■a 

<u 


03 

"3 

o 

E 

<D 

X 

U 


c 


3 

o 

3 

o 

4—* 

03 

o 

O 

'E 

4—* 

03 

4—> 


— 

4l 

‘x 

*C 

X 

O 

03 

O 

4» 

l_ 

73 


X 


a/ 

1-1 
a. a> 

U u 

£ < 

0 - 


3 

O 

*-*- 

3 

s- 

** 

3 

a> 

o 

3 

O 

u 


-4— 

£ Is 

so t- c 
Os 9 <D 

• > CO 

O' O »- 
Os O 03 


w = 

3 .2 

5 -s 

co 2 

< 3 

_ a/ 
« W 

3 = 

O 

ta 0 


X 

Bb ^ 
E < 

rn ^ 

SO L_ 

o C- 
o 

© 


X 

Bb ^ 
E < 

m ^ 

o b. 

o 

o 


00 ^ 
£ < 


<N 

O 

o 

© 

V 


£ 

H 


oo ■© 
E < 
oo ^ 
(N h- 
O '—- 


X 

Bb ^ 
E < 

oo ^ 
<N B 
o C, 
o 


X 

Bb 

£ 

1 

© 

V 


3 .2 
a> *- 
«« 3 

J- s- 

< = 


05 


Bb _ 
2 < 

5 H 


X 

'5b _ 

2 < 

5 H 


'Bb ^ 

E < 
- £ 

■ H 


t-J 

Bb ^ 
E < 
- ^ 

■ E— 


•s o 
£ U 


o 

o ^ 

g< 

UT3 ^ 
ITS f_ 

O *00 

o ^ 

°. 0b 

® E 


hJ 

Bb _ 
2 < 

5? 


i-J 

Bb 

2 < 

5 t 


o 

a> 5 
E -2 
« « 
Z w 
^ o 
S -3 

K 


C/5 

— C/5 

03 0) 

-*—> . 

(U u. 

___ -4—* 

^ C/5 

(V "O 

^ c 


^ - o « 


o ^ 

3 oo 

C 3 

O _C3 
■*—* C3 
03 o3 

y > 


c 

o 

-TO 

■_ 

o 

a 


3J 

-C 

C/1 


Q 

E— 

-J r 

- o 

c/3 r t 

1) 

C 


03 

c/3 

03 

00 


03 

"O 

03 

C 

03 

u 

t; 

3J 

X> 


3 

Bo 

a/ 

CQ 

c 

3J 


ZJ 

”« 

ZJ 

C/1 


3 

U. 


3 

X 


3 

X 


3 

X 


3 

X 


3 

X 


3 

X 


_o 

X 


_o 

X 


3- 

O « 

5« 4/ 

C3 «5 


o 

03 

<D 

C/5 

03 


O <D 


C/3 

<U 

E 

o 

Q 


<L» 

4—' 

03 

aj 

C/5 

03 


(U 

03 

(L> 

4—» 

C/5 

03 

£ 


C (D 

2 3 
<£: 


<u -p 

03 O 

b '2 

3 « 


C 

o 

c 

E 

o 


^ 12 

3 (U 

o *i 
fc « 
E 


o 

c 


<D 


_ 

X 3 


C/3 c/3 

3 


-p X 
3 ^ 

o B 
E > 
5 « 


aj ob 

« < M 
X U X 4) 

o x o 2 

^ E ^ E 

= ^ i i 

u x o cp 
X o 

on 2 


o 

c 


<u 


§ i2 

E > 

3 3 


a> o ✓-'v 

■t! 3 t3b 3 <U 

C ~ CJ .E P X 


g.i 
1/1 s « 

(U 


3 C 


03 


E ^ 3 rx 

- ■ O 

E > 


<u 


<u 

Id 

a/ 

4—* 

C/5 

03 

£ 


<D 

c5 

0) 

4—* 

C/5 

03 


4/ 

•*< 

c/i 

i_ 

O 4/ 

i h 

3 

T3 


■O X 

c 2 

3 3 

_ "O 

03 O 

• 2 B. 

2 T3 

<U QJ 

^ 3 


C 

o 


X C 
o3 aj 


u p 

| I 3 

d- • — 

22 d g 

5 cr-E 

o3 a> 

5— 

H 


•a =2 

5 o 

o3 3 
C/3 "O 

”3 2 
.2 x 
£ "X 
G y 
— x 
U 3 


o3 

a> 

s 


C/3 

<u 


oo 

3 

TD 

C 


CJ 

‘E 

<u 

C/3 

U. 

ca 


C/3 

C/3 

<U 

o 

o 


C/3 .P 


ab 

c 


0 b 

C/3 .£ 


2 X 

^ "5 

> 3 

aj 


03 
bb oj 
c 2 


0/3 

C/3 

(U 

CJ 

o 


3 


C/3 

_ CA 

0> 4> 

^ O 

2 O 


<U 

'Sb 

s- 

_3 

"cd 

4J 

s 


3 

<L> 

X 

O 

X 

o 

X 


O 

X 


c 

o 

o 

03 


^ x 

— <L> 

CU 

P- C 
c5 « 
> X 

O 9 

w C/3 


C« 

oo X 
(U 3 

X ^ 


bb 

c 

co 

co 

43 

O 

o 


"O 

c 

3 


CO >, 
3 E 
bb « 


o 

X 

X 


_co 

3 

<U 

E 

03 

E 


-+mi ^ 

o 0^ 

S xj 

’o’ E 

^ Z 


o 

«/"3 


>T3 


C4 


ro 

CTi 


'd- 

in 


in 

in 


x 

>n 


r- 

m 


oo 

>n 


>n 

i 

O' 





















Table 9.1 

Arsenic Precipitation/Coprecipitation Treatment Performance Data for Arsenic (continued) 


Source 

9.9 

9.9 

9.9 

9.9 

9.9 

9.9 

9.9 

Precipitating Agent 
or Process' 

Chemical 
precipitation, 
activated carbon 
adsorption, and 

filtration 

Chemical 

precipitation 

Chemical 

precipitation, 

activated carbon 

adsorption, and 

filtration 

Chemical 

precipitation, 

activated carbon 

adsorption, and 

filtration 

Chemical 

precipitation, 

activated carbon 

adsorption, and 

filtration 

Chemical 

precipitation, 

activated carbon 

adsorption, and 

filtration 

Chemical 

precipitation, 

activated carbon 

adsorption, and 

filtration 

Precipitate 

Arsenic 

Concentration 

i 

i 

I 

1 

1 

l 

I 

l 

l 

1 

I 

i 

Final Arsenic 
Concentration 

0.001 mg/L 
(TWA) 

0.001 mg/L 
(TWA) 

0.012 mg/L 
(TWA) 

0.012 mg/L 
(TWA) 

0.006 mg/L 

(TWA) 

0.008 mg/L 

(TWA) 

0.014 mg/L 

(TWA) 

Initial Arsenic 
Concentration 

0 h -0.1 mg/L 
(TWA) 

jj 

— 

£ < 

j6 

O 

0.1-1 mg/L 
(TWA) 

0.1-1 mg/L 
(TWA) 

0.1-1 mg/L 
(TWA) 

0.1-1 mg/L 

(TWA) 

0.1-1 mg/L 

(TWA) 

Site Name or 
Location 

i 

I 

i 

i 

i 

I 

l 

I 

! 

2 

I 

I 

73 

jU 

13 

o 

{/) 

Pilot 

Pilot 

Pilot 

Pilot 

Pilot 

Pilot 

Pilot 

Waste or 

Media 

Wastewater 
bearing 
unspecified 
RCRA listed 
waste code 

Domestic 

wastewater 

Wastewater 
bearing 
unspecified 
RCRA listed 
waste code 

Wastewater 
bearing 
unspecified 
RCRA listed 
waste code 

Wastewater 
bearing 
unspecified 
RCRA listed 
waste code 

Hazardous 
leachate, F039 

Wastewater 
bearing 
unspecified 
RCRA listed 
waste code 

Industry or Site 
Type 

i 

i 

l 

I 

I 

I 

I 

i 

l 

l 

Landfill 

2 

Project 

Number 

59 

09 

3 

62 

63 

64 

65 




















Table 9.1 

Arsenic Precipitation/Coprecipitation Treatment Performance Data for Arsenic (continued) 


4/ 

u 

s_ 

3 

O 

C/5 


3 

44 

OC . 
< ^ 
GO £ 

c u 
'■C © 
3 ,*■ 

.tS °- 

a j- 

*3 ° 
<u 

On 


Oi 


* .sa « 

.tS C »- 

(42 E> 
04 •_ 44 

44 ^ 04 

a o 

U 


• 1.1 

5 * 

!4> 2 

* 

3 

_ OI 

3 W 

3 C 
O 

a Q 


« 3 

s .2 

S 3 

i- i- 

< 3 

— 44 

3 C4 

'-C 3 

.5 u 




0 


0/ 

E 

c 

.o 

’■C 

3 

os 

Z 

04 

0 

04 

■** 

a 


C /1 


jx» 

"3 

04 

C/5 


1 . 


c 

.s 

44 

■*— 

■5 

0 » 

44 

3 

S 


04 

£ 

u 

o 04 

^ >■ 

h h 

I* 

3 

■a 

3 


«- 

SJ 04 
04 X! 

'o’ E 
s 


ON 

ON 


3 .2 
•3 3 

E 

04 a 
p© o 

U <u 


3 

O 

X 

— 

3 

04 

73 

04 

•4—* 

c3 

> 

o 

3 


73 

C 

3 


3 o 
O VC 

•- 3 

O a 

C/2 

73 

3 


H 

a 

"Bo 

E 

00 


60 ^ 
E < 
© £ 

- E— 


04 

+-» 

3 

X 

04 

3 

04 

-1 


3 

a 

o 2 * 
• — 73 


C 

3 


3 

3 


NO 

NO 


r- 

o^ 


04 C 

X o 


3 


o 
c 
3 V 


— 2—» 3 " 

— i3 o .2 x 

• — ‘ i~~! • *—1 d 

^ Q- •— ^3 ; 

S 8 ? g t 

S a^'S * 

3 


i-J 

'Bb 

£ 

r- 

o 

o 


a 

~Sb 

E 

o 

o 

rn 

m 


_o 

a 


04 
-*-* 

3 -o 
£ 3 <- 

. 04 


04 


04 e 

x E 
x o 
3 f'-' 

04 

C/5 


04 

E 

Ol 


bX) 
“5 .2 


3 


C/2 

— 1/3 
04 04 

X 04 
2 O 


r~~ 

x 


o^ 


04 


3 ° 

C _ _ r* 

•B g c « 

3 o .2 x 
•— x -3 3 
ax 2 3 : 
o ? P « 

a £ 

3 


a 

Bib 

E 

cn 

o 

o 


a 

'Bb 

E 

00 

cri 


_o 

a 


1- O 04 

3 ^ 13 
x ^ E 

04 O c/2 

X •« 

H « g 
o 


60 
C/2 .£ 

2 “ 
04 04 

X 04 

2 P 


OO 

X 


c— 


GO 

X 

'Bb 

E 

>y~) 

o 

V 


GO 

X 

^b 


00 

cri 


_o 

a 


3 3 
■C « 

to f. 
-t 04 

X c/2 
3 3 

~ £ 


ON 

X 




.3 a 


3 



04 
X W 

a Q 


3 X 04 


>2 

3 

73 

L. 

04 

a 

C/2 

3 

_o 

*3 

60 

3 

O 


X 

GO 

E 


E 

3 

•— 

60 

O 


04 

a 

C/2 

£ 

3 

1-1 

60 


GO 

X 

'Bb 

E 


04 

£» 

3 

’x 

o 

2 —* 

04 

3 

73 

04 

04 

o 


3 

_o 

X 

o 

3 

— 

2 —* 

X 

a 


H 

a 

a 


mg/L = milligrams per liter — = Not available TCLP = Toxicity characteristic leaching 

RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act TWA = Total waste analysis procedure 

WET = Waste extraction test gpd = gallons per day 

























10.0 MEMBRANE FILTRATION FOR 
ARSENIC 


Summary 

Membrane filtration can remove a wide range of 
contaminants from water. Based on the information 
collected to prepare this report, this technology 
typically can reduce arsenic concentrations to less 
than 0.050 mg/L and in some cases has reduced 
arsenic concentrations to below 0.010 mg/L. 
However, its effectiveness is sensitive to a variety of 
untreated water contaminants and characteristics. It 
also produces a larger volume of residuals and tends 
to be more expensive than other arsenic treatment 
technologies. Therefore, it is used less frequently 
than precipitation/coprecipitation, adsorption, and 
ion exchange. It is most commonly used to treat 
groundwater and drinking water, or as a polishing 
step for precipitation processes. Only two full-scale 
projects using membrane filtration to treat arsenic 
were identified in the sources researched for this 
report. 


Technology Description and Principles 

There are four types of membrane processes: 
microfiltration (MF), ultrafiltration (UF), nanofiltration 
(NF), and reverse osmosis (RO). All four of these 
processes are pressure-driven and are categorized by the 
size of the particles that can pass through the 
membranes or by the molecular weight cut off (i.e., 
pore size) of the membrane (Ref. 10.2). The force 


Technology Description: Membrane filtration 
separates contaminants from water by passing it 
through a semi-permeable barrier or membrane. 
The membrane allows some constituents to pass 
through, while blocking others (Ref. 10.2, 10.3). 

Media Treated: 

• Drinking water 

• Groundwater 

• Surface water 

• Industrial wastewater 

Types of Membrane Processes: 

• Microfiltration 

• Ultrafiltration 

• Nanofiltration 

• Reverse osmosis 


required to drive fluid across the membrane depends on 
the pore size; NF and RO require a relatively high 
pressure (50 to 150 pounds per square inch [psi]), while 
MF and UF require lower pressure (5 to 100 psi ) (Ref. 
10.4). The low pressure processes primarily remove 
contaminants through physical sieving, and the high 
pressure processes through chemical diffusion across 
the permeable membrane (Ref. 10.4). 

Model of a Membrane Filtration System 

Contaminated 

Water 





Because arsenic species dissolved in water tend to have 
relatively low molecular weights, only NF and RO 
membrane processes are likely to effectively treat 
dissolved arsenic (Ref. 10.4). MF has been used with 
precipitation/coprecipitation to remove solids 
containing arsenic. The sources used for this report did 
not contain any information on the use of UF to remove 
arsenic; therefore, UF is not discussed in this 
technology summary. MF generates two treatment 
residuals from the influent waste stream: a treated 
effluent (permeate) and a rejected waste stream of 
concentrated contaminants (reject). 

RO is a high pressure process that primarily removes 
smaller ions typically associated with total dissolved 
solids. The molecular weight cut off for RO 
membranes ranges from 1 to 20,000, which is a 
significantly lower cut off than for NF membranes. The 
molecular weight cut off for NF membranes ranges 
from approximately 150 to 20,000. NF is a high- 
pressure process that primarily removes larger divalent 
ions associated with hardness (for example, calcium 
[Ca], and magnesium [Mg] but not monovalent salts 
(for example, sodium [Na] and chlorine [Cl]). NF is 
slightly less efficient than RO in removing dissolved 
arsenic from water (Ref. 10.4). 


10-1 



















MF is a low-pressure process that primarily removes 
particles with a molecular weight above 50,000 or a 
particle size greater than 0.050 micrometers. The pore 
size of MF membranes is too large to effectively 
remove dissolved arsenic species, but MF can remove 
particulates containing arsenic and solids produced by 
precipitation/coprecipitation (Ref. 10.4). 

Media and Contaminants Treated 

Drinking water, surface water, groundwater, and 
industrial wastewater can be treated with this 
technology. Membrane filtration can treat dissolved 
salts and other dissolved materials (Ref. 10.12). 

Type, Number, and Scale of Identified Projects 
Treating Water Containing Arsenic 

The data gathered for this report identified one full- 
scale RO and one full-scale MF treatment of arsenic in 
groundwater and surface water (Figure 10.1). The MF 
application is a treatment train consisting of 
precipitation/coprecipitation followed by MF to remove 
solids. In addition, 16 pilot-scale and three bench-scale 
applications of RO and eight pilot-scale and three 
bench-scale applications of NF have been identified. 
One pilot-scale application of MF to remove solids 
from precipitation/coprecipitation of arsenic has also 
been identified. 


Figure 10.1 

Scale of Identified Membrane Filtration Projects for 
Arsenic Treatment 


Full 

l 2 




25 

Pilot 







Bench 


| 6 




0 

5 

10 

15 

20 25 


Factors Affecting Membrane Filtration 

Performance 

• Suspended solids, high molecular weight, 
dissolved solids, organic compounds, and 
colloids - The presence of these constituents in 
the feed stream may cause membrane fouling. 

• Oxidation state of arsenic - Prior oxidation of 
the influent stream to convert As(III) to As(V) 
will increase arsenic removal; As(V) is 
generally larger and is captured by the 
membrane more effectively than As(IIl). 

• pH - pH may affect the adsorption of arsenic on 
the membrane by creating an electrostatic 
charge on the membrane surface. 

• Temperature - Low influent stream 
temperatures decreases membrane flux. 
Increasing system pressure or increasing the 
membrane surface area may compensate for low 
influent stream temperature. 


Although many of the projects listed in Table 10.1 may 
have reduced arsenic concentrations to below 0.05 
mg/L or 0.01 mg/L, data on the concentration of arsenic 
in the effluent and reject streams were not available for 
most projects. 

For two RO projects, the arsenic concentration in the 
reject stream was available, allowing the concentration 
in permeate to be calculated. For both projects, the 
concentration of arsenic prior to treatment was greater 
than 0.050 mg/L, and was reduced to less than 0.010 
mg/L in the treated water. 

For two projects involving removal of solids from 
precipitation/coprecipitation treatment of arsenic with 
MF, the arsenic concentration in the permeate was 
available. The concentration prior to precipitation/ 
coprecipitation treatment was greater than 0.050 mg/L 
for one project, and ranged from 0.005 to 3.8 mg/L for 
the other. For both projects, the concentration in the 
treated water was less than 0.005 mg/L. 


Summary of Performance Data 

Table 10.1 presents the performance data found for this 
technology. Performance results for membrane 
filtration are typically reported as percent removal, (i.e., 
the percentage of arsenic, by mass, in the influent that is 
removed or rejected from the influent wastewater 
stream). A higher percentage indicates greater removal 
of arsenic, and therefore, more effective treatment. 


The case study at the end of this section further 
discusses the use of membrane filtration to remove 
arsenic from groundwater used as a drinking water 
source. Information for this site is summarized in Table 
10.1, Project 31. 


10-2 

























Applicability, Advantages, and Potential 
Limitations 

Membrane technologies are capable of removing a wide 
range of dissolved contaminants and suspended solids 
from water (Ref. 10.12). RO and NF technologies 
require no chemical addition to ensure adequate 
separation. This type of treatment may be run in either 
batch or continuous mode. This technology’s 
effectiveness is sensitive to a variety of contaminants 
and characteristics in the untreated water. Suspended 
solids, organics, colloids, and other contaminants can 
cause membrane fouling. Therefore, it is typically 
applied to groundwater and drinking water, which are 
less likely to contain fouling contaminants. It is also 
applied to remove solids from precipitation processes 
and as a polishing step for other water treatment 
technologies when lower concentrations must be 
achieved. 

More detailed information on selection and design of 
arsenic treatment systems for small drinking water 
systems is available in the document Arsenic 
Treatment Technology> Design Manual for Small 
Systems “ (Ref. 10.15). 


Factors Affecting Membrane Filtration Costs 

• Type of membrane filtration - The type of 
membrane selected may affect the cost of the 
treatment (Ref. 10.1, 10.2). 

• Initial waste stream - Certain waste streams 
may require pretreatment, which would 
increase costs (Ref. 10.4). 

• Rejected waste stream - Based on 
concentrations of the removed contaminant, 
further treatment may be required prior to 
disposal or discharge (Ref. 10.4). 

• Factors affecting membrane filtration 
performance - Items in the “Factors Affecting 
Membrane Filtration Performance” box will 
also affect costs. 


Summary of Cost Data 

The research conducted in support of this report did not 
document any cost data for specific membrane filtration 
projects to treat of arsenic. The document 
"Technologies and Costs for Removal of Arsenic From 
Drinking Water" (Ref. 10.4) contains additional 
information on the cost of point-of-use reverse osmosis 
systems to treat arsenic in drinking water to levels 
below the revised MCL of 0.010 mg/L. The document 


Case Study: Park City Spiro Tunnel Water 
Filtration Plant 

The Park City Spiro Tunnel Water Filtration Plant in 
Park City, Utah treats groundwater from water¬ 
bearing fissures that collect in a tunnel of an 
abandoned silver mine to generate drinking water. 

A pilot-scale RO unit treated contaminated water at 
a flow rate of 0.77 gallons per minute (gpm) from 
the Spiro tunnel for 34 days. The total and 
dissolved arsenic in the feedwater averaged 0.065 
and 0.042 mg/L, respectively. The total and 
dissolved arsenic concentrations in the permeate 
averaged <0.0005 and <0.0008 mg/L, respectively. 
The RO process reduced As (V) from 0.035 to 
0.0005 mg/L and As (III) from 0.007 to 0.0005 
mg/L. The membrane achieved 99% total As 
removal and 98% As (V) removal (Ref. 10.12) (see 
Project 31, Table 10.1). 


includes capital and O&M cost curves for this 

technology. These cost curves are based on computer 

cost models for drinking water treatment systems. 

References 

10.1 U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development. 
Arsenic & Mercury - Workshop on Removal, 
Recovery, Treatment, and Disposal. EPA-600- 
R-92-105. August 1992. 

10.2 U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development. 
Regulations on the Disposal of Arsenic 
Residuals from Drinking Water Treatment 
Plants. Office of Research and Development. 
EPA-600-R-00-025. May 2000. 
http://www.epa.gov/ORD/WebPubs/ 
residuals/index, htm 

10.3 U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste. BDAT 
Background Document for Spent Potliners from 
Primary Aluminum Reduction - K088. EPA 
530-R-96-015. February 1996. 
http://www.epa.gov/ncepi/Catalog/ 
EPA530R96015.html 

10.4 U.S. EPA Office of Water. Technologies and 
Cost for Removal of Arsenic from Drinking 
Water. EPA 815-R-00-028. December 2000. 
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ars/ 
treatments_and_costs.pdf 

10.5 U.S. EPA National Risk Management Research 
Laboratory. Treatability Database. March 2001. 


10-3 






10.6 U.S. Technology Innovation Office. Database 
for EPA REACH IT (REmediation And 
CHaracterization Innovative Technologies). 
http://www.epareachit.org. March 2001. 

10.7 U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development. 
Contaminants and Remedial Options at Selected 
Metal-Contaminated Sites. EPA/540/R-95/512. 
July, 1995. http://search.epa.gov/s97is.vts 

10.8 Federal Remediation Technologies Reference 
Guide and Screening Manual, Version 4.0. 
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable. 
September 5, 2001. 

http://www.frtr.gov/matrix2/top_page.html. 

10.9 U.S. EPA Office of Water. Arsenic in Drinking 
Water Rule Economic Analysis. EPA 815-R-OO- 
026. December 2000. 
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ars/ 
econ_analysis.pdf 

10.10 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 40, Section 
268. Land Disposal Restrictions. 
http://lula.law.comell.edu/cfr/ 
cfr.php?title=40&type=part&value=268 

10.11 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 400. Effluent 
Limitations Guidelines. 

http://www.epa.gov/docs/epacfr40/chapt-I.info/ 

subch-N.htm 

10.12 Environmental Technology Verification Program 
(ETV). Reverse Osmosis Membrane Filtration 
Used In Packaged Drinking Water Treatment 
Systems, http://www.membranes.com. March 
2001 . 

10.13 Electric Power Research Institute. Innovative 
Technologies for Remediation of Arsenic in Soil 
Groundwater: Soil Flushing, In-Situ Fixation, 
Iron Coprecipitation, and Ceramic Membrane 
Filtration, http://www.epri.com. April 2000. 

10.14 FAMU-FSU College of Engineering. Arsenic 
Remediation. 

http://www.eng.fsu.edu/departments/civil/ 
research/arsenicremedia/index.htm August 21, 
2001 . 

10.15 U.S. EPA. Arsenic Treatment Technology 
Design Manual for Small Systems (100% Draft 
for Peer Review). June 2002. 
http://www.epa.gov/ safewater/smallsys/ 
arsenicdesignmanualpeerreviewdraft.pdf 


10-4 


Table 10.1 

Membrane Filtration Treatment Performance Data for Arsenic 


o 

u 

4 . 

s 

c 

c/2 


•— 

c 


c/3 
c/3 

o 

43 

c 

= eZ 

I = 

E E 

43 *- 

*— ss 
z 43 

u 

H 


o § 

2_ *4= 

3 SB 

> b 

c 

o 
o 
c 
c 
U 


a* 

a 


e 

43 

W5 

La 

< 


S 
o 
o 

•_ 

r 

c_ u. 


S3 


*E 

4» 

t/3 

i- 

< 


c 

.c 

•w 

S3 

i- 

■*— 

C 

o 

43 

c 

o 

U 


c 

o 


s- 

o 

<u 

E 

S3 SB 

Z ° 

C 

2 -1 
55 


S3 

43 

C/2 


•*— 

1/1 

S3 


3 - 

O 

.2 

■5 

o 


«- 

fj 43 

43 — 

•o' E 

£ Z 


c 

© 

S3 

C 

c 

e 

S3 

Z 


00 

£ 

7t 

<n 

© 

i 

00 

m 

G 

G 


1) 

03 

£ 

■o 

c 


a 


oo 

£ 

^r 

IT) 

o 

I 

oo 

m 

O 


>■ 

Z 

c 

£ 

o 

■«—* 

b 

— 

03 

H 


43 

«—* 

03 

£ 

•a 

c 

o 

i- 

U 


(N 


O 


■o 
. 43 
00 

— •— 

43 eg 43 

E -£ c 


w 
43 
D 43 


43 CSS 


00 g 

c C3 

4 ? 


>, X 

E 

43 

E 


c x 

O 

sC 


o 

cZ 


£ 

o 

i 3 


<d 
■«—* 
03 

£ 

"O 

5 

o 

i— 

a 


00 

£ 


U 

o 

o 


m 


© 


T3 

43 

00 


c _ 

43 S3 


43 


43 

_ c 

o S3 


O _>v - 0 


u > 
op •- 

c C3 
00 
43 

c 


C/2 


■"5 

o x 

O 

oc 


o 

aZ 


X 

00 


43 

w 

03 

£ 

-o 

c 

03 

O 

s- 

o 


oo 

S 


u 

o 

Q 


c> 


-a 

<u 

00 

S3 43 

j= 5 

o SB 


4) X 


<u o 


>> G 

E 

5J 


00 ■- 

c S3 

C 


— S3 
SB C 

'■£ cs 

.£ NO 
o 

sO VO 

o'" 

m i 
r- m 


o 

£1 


00 

r" 

•S Zj 


00 

E 


SJ 

■4—» 

■o 

c 

3 

O 

k. 

a 


u 

o 

Q 


io 


o 


c 

D 4> 

P c 

s 

o X) 

<u £ 

■Hb g 

c c 


g «n 

j-v A 

E > 


os o 

c 'c 

S? I 

< < 


o 

£Z 


0) 

o 

,C3 

u. 

3 

C/3 

T3 

<U 

a. 

c« 


O 

S3 


sO 


O 


3 

<U !U 

E e 
^ 2 
(U X 

<u E 

00 c 

_c c 


g SO 
^ A 

E > 


3 O 


3 

<U 

C/3 


o 

£Z 


u 

o 

3 

l_ 

3 

c/3 

<U 5 

- SB 

Q. > 

C/3 > 

O 

E 

4) 

C/3 


^3" 

O 


3 

1> 4) 

E £ 

jd £ 

4) X 

4) E 

32 2 
3 3 

c/5 


^ ° N 

in ^ 

C' A 

E > 

.a o 

3 -3 

oo S 

!_. C/3 


4) 

a 

cS 

•_ 

3 

C/3 

•a 

4) 

S’ ^ 


4) 


00 


^r 

o 


-a 

r- ^ 

c i— 

(D cj D 

E -= c 


o S3 

•s, > § 

00 -3 p 
c C3 *“ 

3 


V? x O 

0 s - oV 

(N ^ 

— oc 
= > 
'o .3 

’E c 

a> 3 
< < 


a 

3 

43 

CQ 


-o 

4) 

E. 

C/3 




^1- 

G 


T3 
^ 4) 

■3 00 

3 i_ 

43 C3 43 

P x e 

5^2 

o >? *E 

<U <U c 

— > 43 

op-- E 

— 03 


o x 

G 

OO 


3 

3 

41 

CQ 


43 

JjZ 

C3 

T5 
<U . 

S/« t— 
43 

S’ £ 


G 


>v 

- 43 

.> C3 
G 3— 
3 X 


00 

43 

3 

O 

43 


E 

43 

E 

"O 

43 

00 

i~ 

3 


7- 03 


v? 

o x 

G 

O' 

> 


43 

3 

43 

03 


T3 

43 

Gi 

D. 

C/3 


10-5 





























Table 10.1 

Membrane Filtration Treatment Performance Data for Arsenic (continued) 


© 

© 

U, 

3 

O 

C/5 


■3" 

© 


3- 

d 


d 


• 3 - 

o' 


3- 

d 


3- 

d 


3" 

d 


3- 

d 


3^ 

d 


3- 

d 


3- 

d 


3 - 

d 


Cfl 

& 
© 
© 
© 

© d 

3 CU 

3 to 

x s 

E E 

41 ts 
Z © 

u 

H 


© 


.5 2 

3 ^ 

L r. 


o 

o 


© 3 

© © 
c P 

3 P 


E S 

>><£ 

X j- 


33 
» © 
3 00 

c 

© 3 


to. ° X 3 o 

© c ? ci- CC 

E x © 

•*—< > . J— 

" P ai £ 

J2 oo ^ 

— 3 © 

t2 5 15 

© 3 

x* ■*—* 

« -g 


© 


© 


— c/5 

s 1 
f- S 


© _d 
© © 

j=P ~ 

C 03 
00 


a/ 

c 

CO 

s- 

X 

E 

© 

E 


•a 

^ <U 

C j_ 

<D 03 ^ 

P X c 

5 ° £ 
© >»■£ 


C/3 


© 

3 


_© > 
op •- 
3 cO 

£ g> 

c 


c 

u © 
P c 
5 g 
© x 
© £ 
00 c 
£ ^ 
c/5 


c 

© © 

£ £ 
© £ 
© x 

<D E 
00 £ 

£ ^ 

1/5 


s 

© © 
£ C 

§ 2 
a> x 
© £ 
oo c 
£ “ 
c/5 


c 

© © 
P c 

© 2 
© X 
© £ 
On 

00 C 
£ ^ 

c/5 


© 

-a 


CO 

© 

o c 
a. co 

O X 

£ £ 

*- £ 
£ 
o 

o 

ac 


© 

c/5 

O © 
X £ 

- Ui 

<U X) 

u £ 
j-T <u 

6 

x © 


£ 

o 

o 

DC 


3 

U 


C 

© 
© 
3 
O 

.Si U 

3 u 

© 

C/5 

© 

< 


© 


3 

© 

C/5 

U, 

< 


3 
© 

© 

U 

Cl. U. 


3 

3 


3" 

O' 

rn 

o 


■ 00 
c 

O' c 
r- 
co I—; 

5 - 


£ 

C3 

<U 

— 


£ 

C3 

d) 


£ 

CU 

o 

*5 ^ 

(U +-* 
c/3 O 

< '5? 


c 

© 

3 

£ 

© 

-a 

© 

CO 

© 


-J 

'oo 

£ 


s=> 

o' 
'O O' 

OO O' 


X so 
^ O' 

E > 

©^ .© 
’£ c 
© © 
2 e 
< < 


rn 

r- 


v? 

o x 

O 

IA5 


V? 

o x 

O 

OO 

A 


s? 

o^- 

o 

O' 

A 


° 

X O' 

s A 

B > 
£ B 

C -3 

© £ 
CO © 
U. c/5 


£ ^ 
0 ^ 

“ O' 
r A 

= > 
.a © 

© g 
2 S 


° sr. 

s ^ 

— A 
= > 
.a 'Z 


m 

O' 

A 


“ > 


O' 


o' 

O' 

O' 


3 

© 

C/5 


x° 

o' 

O' 

O' 

■ 

m 

O' 


3 

# o 

"■to. 

« 

5- 


© 

© 

3 

O 

u 


3 

© 

1/5 

©i 

< 

35 


toJ 

£ 

'Cf 

<N 


© 

O 

oj n 

s .2 

«5 « 

z © 
. ° 
a J 

53 


_© 

"os 

© 

C/5 


3 

X 


X 

X 

X 

o 

X 

3 

DD 

© 


3 

x 

U 


d 

O 

©" 

c 

© 

00 

3 

X 


O 

i- 

-O 

>* 

3 

3 

00 


o 

1— 

-o 

C/5 

>• 

3 

3 

00 


_o 

X 


_o 

cu 


JO 

Cu 


_o 

X 


_o 

X 


_o 

X 


o 

X 


_o 

X 


o 

i- 

T3 

C/5 

>- 

3 

3 

C/5 


_o 

X 


© 

to. 

C/5 

3 


C 

.3 

■5 

© 


T3 

o 

o 

© -5 

3 ‘"P 
^ * 
aj "O 
O © 


<2 

— 

3 

C/5 


3 

3 

£ 

C3 

C 

o 

o 


C/3 

<U 

C/3 

C3 

oo 

3 

'E 

© 

C/5 

© 


00 


© 

3 

•o 

3 

3 

O 

S—i 

o 


© 

3 

T3 

3 

3 

O 

•— 

O 


u 

o 

Q 


© 

3 

"O 

3 

3 

O 

■_ 

a 


u 

o 

Q 


© 

© 

a 

H 

3 

C/5 

"O ^ 

© © 
X 

• — cs 
X > 

C/5 ■> 

© 

£ 

© 

C/5 


© 

© 

X 

t-j 

3 

C/5 

"O v, 
© © 
a ts 
& ^ 


c 

<u 

C/3 

t- 

< 


© 

© 

t 133 

— 

H 

3 

C/5 

TJ t. 

S © 

X > 

C/5 > 


3 

© 

C/5 

U. 

< 


<u 

cu 

c 

3 

C/5 

"P i. 
© © 
X a 

X > 

c/5 > 

© 

£ 

© 

C/5 


© 
to< 

3 

-o 

3 

3 

O 

•— 

o 


© 
■*—* 
C3 

T3 

3 

3 

O 

© 

O 


*- *- 
o © 

© X 

•o’ E 
d = 

^ z 


(N 


rn 


n 


X 


r- 


oo 


O' 


o 

m 


<N 


<N 

(N 


<n 

(N 


«n 

m 


x 

<N 


































Table 10.1 

Membrane Filtration Treatment Performance Data for Arsenic (continued) 


Source 

10.4 

10.4 

10.4 

10.4 

10.12 


10.14 

10.13 

Membrane or 

Treatment Process 

i 

I 

I 

1 

! 

! 

! 


Iron coprecipitation 

followed by membrane 

filtration 

Iron coprecipitation 

followed by ceramic 

membrane filtration 

Percent Arsenic Removal 3 or 
Final Arsenic Concentration 

86% 

Arsenic (III) 5% 

Arsenic (V) 96% 

Arsenic (III) 5% 

Arsenic (V) 96% 

Arsenic (V) 88% 

0.0005 mg/L 


<0.005 - 0.05 mg/L 

<0.005 mg/L 

Initial Arsenic 
Concentration 

I 

i 

I 

l 

l 

l 

» 

i 

0.065 mg/L 


0.005 - 3.8 mg/L 

0.2 - 1.0 mg/L 

Site Name or 
Location 

Tarrytown, NY 

I 

I 

l 

I 

! 

Park City Spiro 
Tunnel Water 
Filtration Plant, Park 
City, Utah 

I 

l 

I 

Scale 

Pilot 

Bench 

Bench 

Bench 

Pilot 


Full 

Pilot 

Media or Waste 

Groundwater 

Arsenic spiked lake 
water 

Arsenic spiked DI water 

Arsenic spiked DI water 

Drinking water 

s 

o 

— 

s 

■— 

Groundwater 

Groundwater 







■—* 



+* i- 

CJ o 






G 



cy — 


oc 

ON 

G 


o 

(N 

m 

C 3 


CJ 



m 

o 

cn 

m 

*- = 

^ Z 






i 




o 

G 


C/2 


1) 

E 


c 

u 

3 

g 


<D 


C 

O 

‘3 

a> 

C/2 


C3 

-4— 

o 


c /2 

C/2 

3 


E 


<u 


>2 

X 

*o 

<u 

> 

■a 

<L> 

03 

£ 

-a 

<u 

-4~* 

03 

O 


0) 


*c 

<u 

C/3 

S— 

03 


C/3 

C/3 

03 


<L> 


C/3 

d 


E 


c 

_o 

o 

'a? 

i— 

o 

'E 

<D 

C/2 

U. 

03 


C 

1) 

o 

0> 

CL 


03 


O 

G 


C 

<u 

3 

£ 

a> 

o 

c 

<u 

(73 

U, 

03 

O 

C/3 

C/3 

E 
—* 
c 
<u 
3 
G 
C 

o 

’E 

<u 

C/2 

I- 

03 

"a 

O 

c /2 N 

8 C 

E -2 

G- 0) 

jl a 


c 

o 

X 

l- 

03 

O 

o 


c 



C/3 

3 



00 



C/3 

■— 



o 

o 


c 

o 

E 

"O 

JU 


C/3 

<u 

> 

X) 

•*—* 
C3 

o 

o 

C/2 

JS 

E 

-4—» 

G 

<u 

C/2 

L. 

C/2 

> 

O 

<L> 

Q 

3 

c 

CC3 

<D 

II 

O 

Z 

Oi 

u 

z 

II 

II 

O 

II 

tJL 

o 

Q 

2 

z 

a£ 


10-7 














































Model of an Adsorption System 


11.0 ADSORPTION TREATMENT FOR 
ARSENIC 

Technology Description and Principles 

This section discusses arsenic removal processes that 
use a fixed bed of media through which water is passed. 
Some of the processes described in this section rely on a 
combination of adsorption, precipitation/ 
coprecipitation, ion exchange, and filtration. However, 
the primary removal mechanism in each process is 
adsorption. For example, greensand is made from 
glauconite, a green, iron-rich, clay-like mineral that 
usually occurs as small pellets mixed with other sand 
particles. The glauconite-containing sand is treated 
with potassium permanganate (KMn0 4 ), forming a 
layer of manganese oxides on the sand. As water 
passes through a greensand filtration bed, the KMn0 4 
oxidizes As(III) to As(V), and As(V) adsorbs onto the 
greensand surface. In addition, arsenic is removed by 
ion exchange, displacing species from the manganese 
oxide (presumably hydroxide ion [OH ] and water 
[H ; 0]). When the KMn0 4 is exhausted, the greensand 
media must be regenerated or replaced. Greensand 
media is regenerated with a solution of excess KMn0 4 . 
Greensand filtration is also known as 
oxidation/filtration (Ref. 11.3). 


Summary 

Adsorption has been used to treat groundwater and 
drinking water containing arsenic. Based on the 
information collected for this report, this technology 
typically can reduce arsenic concentrations to less 
than 0.050 mg/L and in some cases has reduced 
arsenic concentrations to below 0.010 mg/L. Its 
effectiveness is sensitive to a variety of untreated 
water contaminants and characteristics. It is used 
less frequently than precipitation/coprecipitation, 
and is most commonly used to treat groundwater and 
drinking water, or as a polishing step for other water 
treatment processes. 


Activated alumina (AA) is the sorbent most commonly 
used to remove arsenic from drinking water (Ret. 11.1), 
and has also been used for groundwater (Ref. 11.4). 

The reported adsorption capacity of AA ranges from 
0.003 to 0.112 grams of arsenic per gram of AA (Ref. 

11.4). It is available in different mesh sizes and its 
particle size affects contaminant removal efficiency. 



replacement with new media (Ref. 11.3). Regeneration 
is a four-step process: 

• Backwashing 

• Regeneration 

• Neutralization 

• Rinsing 


Technology Description: In adsorption, solutes 
(contaminants) concentrate at the surface of a 
sorbent, thereby reducing their concentration in the 
bulk liquid phase. The adsorption media is usually 
packed into a column. As contaminated water is 
passed through the column, contaminants are 
adsorbed. When adsorption sites become filled, the 
column must be regenerated or disposed of and 
replaced with new media. 

Media Treated: 

• Groundwater 

• Drinking water 

Types of Sorbent Used in Adsorption to Treat 
Arsenic: 

• Activated alumina (AA) 

• Activated carbon (AC) 

• Copper-zinc granules 

• Granular ferric hydroxide, ferric hydroxide- 

coated newspaper pulp, iron oxide coated sand, 
iron filings mixed with sand 

• Greensand filtration (KMn0 4 coated glauconite) 

• Proprietary media 

• Surfactant-modified zeolite 


Up to 23,400 bed volumes of wastewater can be treated 
before AA requires regeneration or disposal and 
























The regeneration process desorbs the arsenic. The 
regeneration fluid most commonly used for AA 
treatment systems is a solution of sodium hydroxide. 
The most commonly used neutralization fluid is a 
solution of sulfuric acid. The regeneration and 
neutralization steps for AA adsorption systems might 
produce a sludge because the alumina can be dissolved 
by the strong acids and bases used in these processes, 
forming an aluminum hydroxide precipitate in the spent 
regeneration and neutralization fluids. This sludge 
typically contains a high concentration of arsenic (Ref. 
11 . 1 ). 

Activated carbon (AC) is an organic sorbent that is 
commonly used to remove organic and metal 
contaminants from drinking water, groundwater, and 
wastewater (Ref. 11.4). AC media are normally 
regenerated using thermal techniques to desorb and 
volatilize contaminants (Ref. 11.6). However, 
regeneration of AC media used for the removal of 
arsenic from water might not be feasible (Ref. 11.4). 

The arsenic might not volatilize at the temperatures 
typically used in AC regeneration. In addition, off-gas 
containing arsenic from the regeneration process may 
be difficult or expensive to manage. 

The reported adsorption capacity of AC is 0.020 grams 
of As(V) per gram of AC. As(III) is not effectively 
removed by AC. AC impregnated with metals such as 
copper and ferrous iron has a higher reported adsorption 
capacity for arsenic. The reported adsorption capacity 
for As(lII) is 0.048 grams per gram of copper- 
impregnated carbon and for As(V) is 0.2 grams per 
gram of ferrous iron-impregnated carbon (Ref. 11.4). 

Iron-based adsorption media include granular ferric 
hydroxide, ferric hydroxide-coated newspaper pulp, 
ferric oxide, iron oxide-coated sand, sulfur-modified 
iron, and iron filings mixed with sand. These media 
have been used primarily to remove arsenic from 
drinking water. Processes that use these media 
typically remove arsenic using adsorption in 
combination with oxidation, precipitation/ 
coprecipitation, ion exchange, or filtration. For 
example, iron oxide-coated sand uses adsorption and 
ion exchange with surface hydroxides to selectively 
remove arsenic from water. The media requires 
periodic regeneration or disposal and replacement with 
new media. The regeneration process is similar to that 
used for AA, and consists of rinsing the media with a 
regenerating solution containing excess sodium 
hydroxide, flushing with water, and neutralizing with a 
strong acid, such as sulfuric acid (Ref. 11.3). 

The sources used for this report contained information 
on the use of surfactant-modified zeolite (SMZ) at 
bench scale, but no pilot- or full-scale applications were 


identified. SMZ is prepared by treating zeolite with a 
solution of surfactant, such as 

hexadecyltrimethylammonium bromide (HDTMA-Br). 
This process forms a stable coating on the zeolite 
surface. The reported adsorption capacity of SMZ is 
0.0055 grams of As( V) per gram of SMZ at 25"C. SMZ 
must be periodically regenerated with surfactant 
solution or disposed and replaced with new SMZ (Ref. 
11.17). 

Media and Contaminants Treated 

Adsorption is frequently used to remove organic 
contaminants and metals from industrial wastewater. It 
has been used to remove arsenic from groundwater and 
drinking water. 

Type, Number, and Scale of Identified Projects 
Treating Water Containing Arsenic 

Adsorption technologies to treat arsenic-contaminated 
water in water are commercially available. Information 
was found on 23 applications of adsorption (Figure 
11.1), including 7 full- and 5 pilot-scale projects fro 
groundwater and surface water and 8 full- and 3 pilot- 
scale projects for drinking water. 

Figure 11.1 

Scale of Identified Adsorption Projects for Arsenic 

Treatment 


Full 


Pilot 


0 5 10 15 








15 


8 






Summary of Performance Data 

Adsorption treatment effectiveness can be evaluated by 
comparing influent and effluent contaminant 
concentrations. Table 11.1 presents the available 
performance data for this technology. Two of the four 
groundwater and surface water projects having both 
influent and effluent arsenic concentration data had 
influent concentrations greater than 0.050 mg/L. 
Effluent concentrations of 0.050 mg/L or less were 


2 













Factors Affecting Adsorption Performance 

Fouling - The presence of suspended solids, 
organics, solids, silica, or mica, can cause 
fouling of adsorption media (Ref. 11.1, 11.4). 
Arsenic oxidation state - Adsorption is more 
effective in removing As(V) than As(IlI) (Ref. 
11 . 12 ). 

Flow rate - Increasing the rate of flow through 
the adsorption unit can decrease the adsorption 
of contaminants (Ref. 11.1). 

Wastewater pH - The optimal pH to maximize 
adsorption of arsenic by activated alumina is 
acidic (pH 6). Therefore, pretreatment and 
post-treatment of the water could be required 
(Ref. 11.4). 


achieved in both of the projects. In the other two 
groundwater and surface water projects the influent 
arsenic concentration was between 0.010 mg/L and 
0.050 mg/L, and the effluent concentration was less 
than 0.010 mg/L. 

Of the ten drinking water projects (eight full and two 
pilot scale) having both influent and effluent arsenic 
concentration data, eight had influent concentrations 
greater than 0.050 mg/L. Effluent concentrations of 
less than 0.050 mg/L were achieved in seven of these 
projects. For two drinking water projects the influent 
arsenic concentration was between 0.010 mg/L and 
0.050 mg/L, and the effluent concentration was less 
than 0.010 mg/L. 

Projects that did not reduce arsenic concentrations to 
below 0.050 or 0.010 mg/L do not necessarily indicate 
that adsorption cannot achieve these levels. The 
treatment goal for some applications may have been 
above these levels and the technology may have been 
designed and operated to meet a higher arsenic 
concentration. Information on treatment goals was not 
collected for this report. 

Two pilot-scale studies were performed to compare the 
effectiveness AA adsorption on As(III) and As(V) 
(Projects 3 and 4 in Table 11.1). For As(lII), 300 bed 
volumes were treated before arsenic concentrations in 
the effluent exceeded 0.050 mg/L, whereas 23,400 bed 
volumes were treated for As(V) before reaching the 
same concentration in the effluent. The results of these 
studies indicate that the adsorption capacity of AA is 
much greater for As( V). 

The case study at the end of this section discusses in 
greater detail the use of AA to remove arsenic from 


drinking water. Information for this project is 
summarized in Table 11.1, Project 13. 

Applicability, Advantages, and Potential Limitations 

For AA adsorption media, the spent regenerating 
solution might contain a high concentration of arsenic 
and other sorbed contaminants, and can be corrosive 
(Ref. 11.3). Spent AA is produced when the AA can no 
longer be regenerated (Ref. 11.3). The spent AA may 
require treatment prior to disposal (Ref. 11.4). Because 
regeneration of AA requires the use of strong acids and 
bases, some of the AA media becomes dissolved during 
the regeneration process. This can reduce the 
adsorptive capacity of the AA and cause the AA 
packing to become "cemented." 

Regeneration of AC media involves the use of thermal 
energy, which could release volatile arsenic 
compounds. Use of air pollution control equipment 
may be necessary to remove arsenic from the off-gas 
produced (Ref. 11.6). 

Competition for adsorption sites could reduce the 
effectiveness of adsorption because other constituents 
may be preferentially adsorbed, resulting in a need for 
more frequent bed regeneration or replacement. The 
presence of sulfate, chloride, and organic compounds 
has reportedly reduced the adsorption capacity of AA 
for arsenic (Ref. 11.3). The order for adsorption 
preference for AA is provided below, with the 
constituents with the greatest adsorption preference 
appearing at the top left (Ref. 11.3): 

OH > H 2 As0 4 - > Si(OH) 3 0' > F > HSeO/ > S0 4 2 ' 

> H 3 As0 3 

This technology’s effectiveness is also sensitive to a 
variety of contaminants and characteristics in the 
untreated water, and suspended solids, organics, silica, 
or mica can cause fouling. Therefore, it is typically 
applied to groundwater and drinking water, which are 
less likely to contain fouling contaminants. It may also 
be used as a polishing step for other water treatment 
technologies. 

More detailed information on selection and design of 
arsenic treatment systems for small drinking water 
systems is available in the document “Arsenic 
Treatment Technology Design Manual for Small 
Systems “ (Ref. 11.20). 

Summary of Cost Data 

One source reported that the cost of removing arsenic 
from drinking water using AA ranged from $0,003 to 


11-3 



Factors Affecting Adsorption Costs 

Contaminant concentration - Very high 
concentrations of competing contaminants may 
require frequent replacement or regeneration of 
adsorbent (Ref. 11.2). The capacity of the 
adsorption media increases with increasing 
contaminant concentration (Ref. 11.1, 11.4). 
High arsenic concentrations can exhaust the 
adsorption media quickly, resulting in the need 
for frequent regeneration or replacement. 

Spent media - Spent media that can no longer 
be regenerated might require treatment or 
disposal (Ref. 11.4). 

Factors affecting adsorption performance - 

Items in the “Factors Affecting Adsorption 
Performance” box will also affect costs. 


$0.76 per 1,000 gallons (Ref. 11.4, cost year not 
provided). The document "Technologies and Costs for 
Removal of Arsenic From Drinking Water " (Ref. 11.3) 
contains detailed information on the cost of adsorption 
systems to treat arsenic in drinking water to below the 
revised MCL of 0.010 mg/L. The document includes 
capital and operating and maintenance (O&M) cost 
curves for four adsorption processes: 


Case Study: Treatment of Drinking Water by an 
Activated Alumina Plant 

A drinking water treatment plant using AA (see 
Table 11.1, Project 13) installed in February 1996 
has an average flow rate of 3,000 gallons per day. 
The arsenic treatment system consists of two 
parallel treatment trains, with two AA columns in 
series in each train. For each of the trains, the AA 
media in one column is exhausted and replaced 
every 1 to 1.5 years after treating approximately 
5,260 bed volumes. 

Water samples for a long-term evaluation were 
collected weekly for a year. Pretreatment arsenic 
concentrations at the inlet ranged from 0.053 to 
0.087 mg/L with an average of 0.063 mg/L. The 
untreated water contained primarily As(V) with only 
minor concentrations of As(IlI) and particulate 
arsenic. During the entire study, the arsenic 
concentration in the treated drinking water was 
below 0.003 mg/L. Spent AA from the system had 
leachable arsenic concentrations of less than 0.05 
mg/L, as measured by the TCLP, and therefore, 
could be disposed of as nonhazardous waste. 


• AA (at various influent pH levels) 

• Granular ferric hydroxide 

• Greensand filtration (KMN0 4 coated sand) 

• AA point-of-use systems 

These cost curves are based on computer cost models 
for drinking water systems. The curves show the costs 
for adsorption treatment systems with different design 
flow rates. The document also contains information on 
the disposal cost of residuals from adsorption. Many of 
the technologies used to treat drinking water are 
applicable to treatment of other types of water, and may 
have similar costs. Table 3.4 in Section 3 of this 
document contains cost estimates based on these curves 
for AA and greensand filtration. 

References 

11.1 U.S. EPA. Regulations on the Disposal of 
Arsenic Residuals from Drinking Water 
Treatment Plants. Office of Research and 
Development. EPA/600/R-00/025. May 2000. 
http://www.epa.gov/ORD/WebPubs/residuals/ 
index.htm 

11.2 Federal Remediation Technologies Reference 
Guide and Screening Manual, Version 3.0. 
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable. 
March 30, 2001. http://www.frtr.gov/matrix2/ 
top_page.html. 

11.3 U.S. EPA. Technologies and Costs for Removal 
of Arsenic From Drinking Water. EPA 815-R- 
00-028. Office of Water. December 2000. 
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ars/ 
treatments_and_costs.pdf 

11.4 Twidwell, L.G., et al. Technologies and 
Potential Technologies for Removing Arsenic 
from Process and Mine Wastewater. Presented 
at "REWAS'99." San Sebastian, Spain. 
September 1999. 

http://www.mtech.edu/metallurgy/arsenic/ 

REWASAS%20for%20proceedings99%20in%2 

0word.pdf 

11.5 U.S. EPA. Pump and Treat of Contaminated 
Groundwater at the Mid-South Wood Products 
Superfund Site, Mena, Arkansas. Federal 
Remediation Technologies Roundtable. 
September 1998. 

http://www.frtr.gov/costperf.html. 

11.6 U.S. EPA. Final Best Demonstrated Available 
Technology (BDAT) Background Document for 
K031, K.084, K101, K102, Characteristic Arsenic 
Wastes (D004), Characteristic Selenium Wastes 
(DO 10), and P and U Wastes Containing Arsenic 
and Selenium Listing Constituents. Office of 
Solid Waste. May 1990. 






11.7 U.S. EPA. Groundwater Pump and Treat 
Systems: Summary of Selected Cost and 
Performance Information at Superfund-financed 
Sites. EPA-542-R-01 -021 b. EPA OSWER. 
December 2001. http://clu-in.org 

11.8 Murcott S. Appropriate Remediation 
Technologies for Arsenic-Contaminated Wells in 
Bangladesh. Massachusetts Institute of 
Technology. February 1999. 
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/html/people/faculty/ 
murcott.html 

11.9 Haq N. Low-cost method developed to treat 
arsenic water. West Bengal and Bangladesh 
Arsenic Crisis Information Center. June 2001. 
http://bicn.com/acic/resources/infobank/nfb/ 
2001-06-1 l-nv4n593.htm 

11.10 U.S. EPA. Arsenic Removal from Drinking 
Water by Iron Removal Plants. EPA 600-R-00- 
086. Office of Research and Development. 
August 2000. 

http://www.epa.gov/ORD/WebPubs/iron/ 

index.html 

11.11 Harbauer GmbH & Co. KG. Germany. Online 
address: http://www.harbauer-berlin.de/arsenic. 

11.12 U.S. EPA. Arsenic Removal from Drinking 
Water by Ion Exchange and Activated Alumina 
Plants. EPA 600-R-00-088. Office of Research 
and Development. October 2000. 

http ://www. epa. go v/ncepi/C ata 1 og / 
EPA600R00088.html 

11.13 Environmental Research Institute. Arsenic 
Remediation Technology - AsRT. June 28, 

2001. http://www.eng2.uconn.edu/~nikos/asrt- 
brochure.html. 

11.14 Redox Treatment of Groundwater to Remove 
Trace Arsenic at Point-of-Entry Water Treatment 
Systems. June 28, 2001. 
http://phys4.harvard.edu/~wilson/Redox/ 
Desc.html. 

11.15 U.S. EPA. Treatment Technologies for Site 
Cleanup: Annual Status Report (Tenth Edition). 
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. 
EPA-542-R-01-004. February 2001. 
http://clu-in.org/asr 

11.16 Electric Power Research Institute. Innovative 
Technologies for Remediation of Arsenic in Soil 
Groundwater: Soil Flushing, In-Situ Fixation, 
Iron Coprecipitation, and Ceramic Membrane 
Filtration. April 2000. http://www.epri.com 

11.17 Sullivan, E. J., Bowman, R S., and Leieic, I.A. 
Sorption of Arsenate from Soil-Washing 
Leachate by Surfactant-Modified Zeolite. 
Prepublication draft. January, 2002. 
bowman@nmt.edu 

11.18 E-mail attachment from Cindy Schreier, Prima 
Environmental to Sankalpa Nagaraja, Tetra Tech 
EM Inc. June 18, 2002. 


11.19 Severn Trent Services. UK. 
http://www.capitalcontrols.co.uk/ 

11.20 U.S. EPA. Arsenic Treatment Technology 
Design Manual for Small Systems (100% Draft 
for Peer Review). June 2002. 
http://www.epa.gov/ safewater/smallsys/ 
arsenicdesignmanualpeerreviewdraft.pdf 


11 -5 


Table 11.1 

Adsorption Treatment Performance Data for Arsenic 


Ot 

o 

La 

3 

© 

C/3 


CO 

CO 

at 

2 | 

o- .2 

C Q. 

.2 ‘C 
a & 

U 4* 

o Q 

co 

3 

< 


.2 § 

c « 

2 *- 

4-1 

< = 

at 

■3 at 

.2 © 

u. u 


at 3 

B .2 

M « 

4-> 

< s 

__ at 

es a» 

•—* c 

•5 © 
£ U 


a. 

© 

© 5 
£ ® 
© 3 

z <*» 
^ © 

S J 

53 


"3 

at 

c ft 


.2 

■5 

at 

s 

1 m 

o 

a> 

C/5 


0 / 

■w 

35 

!■ 

© © 
- a 

t 1 >> 

3 

•o 

c 


-4_t m* 

at 

© £ 
'o’ E 
> 3 

z 


« 

3 

E 

3 

< 

■o 

at 

3 

*-C 

at 

< 

i 

.2 

■5 

at 


3 

a* 

3 

at 

E 

3 

© 

— 

’> 

3 

U 


a> 


3 

c o 

•3 O . 

ins 

«Si 

T3 2 In 

V •— 
■s £ at 

3 J? 4 -* 

> J2 3 : 
‘■3 U- 
o 

< 


!-J 

'5b 


tr> 

o 

o 

V 


3 

IX 


at 

3 

£ 

3 

c 

3 

O 

■— 

a 


3 m 

Ik 

£ ex 

3 4-4 

3 « 


01 .3 

4 -> +-> 

2 B- 

\£3 O 

at 

< 3 
3 


toO 

3 

i/t 

O 

o 

V 


_o 

'{£ 


at 
■*—» 
a3 

£ 

-a 

c 

3 

O 

— 

a 


Cn| 


r*~> 


3 

3 

at 

4 —> 

3 
> 
4 —! 

at 

< 


o 

o 

ad 

E 

ex 

4-4 

3 

C 

o 


o 
00 o 

.3 ^ 

;s 

* 3 

4— 

3 


— 0 t 

"E 
0 ) 
co 


3 

at 

3 3 
at at at 
' at -3 
at 3 
v at 

aj £ 


3 

at 


o 

at 

3 

O 


GO 

at 


3 


4-4 3 

3 4 

at -J 


3 
at 

-2 3 

o > 

GO •!- 


5 = 


at 


o 

> ~ ir , 

at q x 
X « ° 
at 
X) 


ft 

o 


at 

3 

at _j 
b 30 

4- E 

3 

V 

3 

> 




3 O 

at „ X 

1 -3 ^ 
‘C at E 
E— £ 

3 


_o 

Cl 


3 

O 

4-4 

_3 

O 

an 


at 

too S 

3 co 

• - i-M 

3 3 

2 3 

3 at 

gf 


m 


m 


° too 

© 5 

ad "2 

3C ’3 
3 ; 4-> 
ex c 

3 o 

3 at 


. co 

at at 

E E 

at 3 

£ "o 

3 > 


3 

at 

3 

C 


3 3 


at .b 

-e 3 

S o 

-O co 
3 


3 

at 

x 

o 

o 

3 " 


3 

at 

3 
> 

3 
-*—» 

0 ) 

ex on £ 


tJ 

'do 

E 

at I/-, 
o 
ad 


at 


<£ - 
at 


3 

at 

4-4 

3 

at 


at 

3 

at 

at 

at 

x 

at 


at 

fl 

at 

CO 

b. 

3 

4—4 

3 

_at 

3 

> 

3 

4-4 

3 

at 

CL 


S-J 

do 

E 

ft 

o 


3 . 

at o 


3 

> 

3 

—4 

3 

at 

a. 


at 

’E 

at 

co 

L 

3 


toO 

E 


_o 

cx 


3 

2 c 


top c 


_at y 
3 


3 3 


3 ^ 


O 

c n 


3 co 

•4—t l . 

3 
at 
cx 


3 


























Table 11.1 

Adsorption Treatment Performance Data for Arsenic (continued) 


4 

4 

U 

3 

O 

C/5 


t/i 

C/3 

4 

o-c 

'-C 
c a. 
.2 *C 

X 4 
2. t/3 

s- «u 

o Q 
<*> " 
T5 


2 © 
Si 


i- 


3 

4 
4 
3 
O 

b <J 


« 

3 


4 3 

*3 -2 

£ g 

< 3 

— 4 

03 4 

■ c! 

i ° 
= u 


u 

o 

4* 5 

£ $ 

« S3 

Z 4 

^ O 

cZ 


_4 

3 

4 

C/5 


.2 

■3 

4 


4 


O 4 

>> £ 

- H 

C/3 

3 

■o 

8 


i- 

o a* 

O £ 

’o’ £ 

£ z 


8 

O 

-O 

— 

3 

u 

T3 

4 

— 

3 

£ 

4 

I 

.2 

■3 

4 


3 

8 

4) 

E 

3 

O 

■— 

> 

3 

W 


in 


u. 

2 3 

3 5 .2 

™ 3 

"3 >- 

3*1 


03 


Uh 

3 <2 

o a> 
a. « 

n 33 
c/3 3 

-a -a 

3 


3 

4 

s- .3 

c/3 

3 
O 

4 


3 

S— 

3 

a. 

4 

c/3 


c 

4 

E 

3 

4 


4 


C 

o 

X> 

•— 

3 

° ,o « 
■o V ^ 
s 


3 

4 


3 


4 


>n 

m 

o I 

Os 4 

<N ^ 

S 'T bb 
X c 
bb ‘C 

E 2 

•n 2 
© ° 

^ E 

o 

V 


fcj 

'Sb 

E 

oo 

o 

© 


O 3 45 

O vE < 

£ b 

_ Q. $2 

•G 3 C 

3 c3 « 

O 4- 2 

45 4 , 

-O -O 2 

■*5 2 45 


3 

u. 


4 

3 

£ 

"O 

3 

3 

o 

•— 

a 


bb 

3 


TD 

O 

O 


m 


r- 


3 

O C 
-•-SO 
.5 3 X) 
3 *3 b 

S-H — 3 

r « g 

c 4 * >, 

<U O -3 


bb TJ O 

.E > -a 
.2 S * 

1/5 32 

S ,2 
o 4 - 
4 


4 

-3 “ ,, 

J1S 

5 «S _r 

>i-C 
3 4 0 

u ^ 

-s c/5 o 

o 4 X 

Z 4 

4 — 

C/5 


3 

U- 


4 T3 

> M 

Is 

3 © 

2 <" 

• (N 


a 


bb 

3 


-a 

o 

o 


VO 


Jj£ O 

03 ’G 

I 2 & 

E — o 

c: z 

3 O - as 

g> O C 
c •- O 

3 4^ 


4 

E 

3 

4 

u, 

H 


C/3 +— 

C/3 

3 

O 

4 


;§. s 

4 -o 
2 c 
a. 03 


"3 

a. 't 
a. 4 
3 0 . 
45 3 

c/3 C /5 


4 

-o 

3 

3 

3 

C/5 


>» X 
§ ^ 
9 - 4 

E .3 
o 45 
U 


3 ^ 

4 

3 

03 

1 ^ 


3 

u. 


4 
3 

T3 
3 
3 

O ' 

1 - ro 

O 


T3 

3. 

bO 

O 

o 

o 


bo 

3 


"O 

O 

O 


r-~ 


.2 ~o 
5? § 


•>-> 4 rv 

r3 4 tr 


3 

4 

E 

3 

4 


— 4 

*4- (Di) 

<4-. 3 

O 3 

M-g 
.£ x 

*4 4 
•— 3 

3 .2 

o 

4 


_ bfi « 

^ 3 .tb 

» 3 “ g 

4 M -o u 

O o c . 

s 2 a "2 

Eu fej 

O c, O. -H 

U 4 3 § 

4 ^ C^ (£ 
> 3 • 

m 5 


3 

Pu 


4 

3 

"3 

3 

3 

O 

1 - 

o 


T3 

Cl, 

bo 

O 

O 

o 


bfl 

3 


T3 

O 

O 


00 


t"- 


c/i 

- 3 "E 


3" 3 

O O 


3 

4 

E 

4—* 

03 

<D 

Uh 

H 


2 

4 £ o & 

0 E «= -S 

&P „ _r 3 3 


.E ob S 


t/i 


c .2 § £ 


c/3 §" 2 ■£ 3 

§ •& -a § - 

4 ts 'G ^3 H 
2 c 

a ^ 


4 


4 


3 

a - 

4 C/5 

3 

i a 

« 4 

■2 g- 

3 45 

m 


f < 


o 

o 

t- 

X 

o 

I 


3 

bn 


4 ~0 
1 & 
Is 

3 O 
o m 
3- 


O 


tb 

3 

X 

E 

3 

4 

E 

4 

-3 

u 


bb 

3 


3 

X) 

T3 

3 

3 


as 


4 


_C/3 Q 

o3 G 

« 2 

E E 

p- 

0 3 

E-l 

tg 2 

'c« a. 

3 • — 
O 4 

4 £ 


T3 3 
3 O 
3 X 

g & 

.2 o 

— c/3 

3 T3 

3 

'x 3 

o o 

^ Irt 

^ s 


T3 

O 

o 


<3, 

1 — 

4 

a. 

3 


| £ 2 < 

4 
4 

Ih 

a 


3 

4 

E 

4 

6 " 


4 
1 - > 

a 


4 


3 

U- 


-o 

a 

bi5 


•3 S 


o 

— 

O 


<n 

VO 


bb 

• E 

3 i= 

4 3 

3 4 

3 ,3 

^ = 


r- 


1 



























Table 11.1 

Adsorption Treatment Performance Data for Arsenic (continued) 


© 

O 

3 

O 

CZ) 


vi 

E/2 

© 

g'g 

CL. .2 

3 Q. 

.2 -C 

■x © 
a. ^ 
© 

© Q 
■o 
< 


© 

*s 

© 

c /1 

— 


c 

a* 
© 

3 

o 
b U 


« 

s 


© © 
*s *2 

S « 

s_ ~ 
_ZS ■*- 

< s 
_ © 

«s © 

1 § 
= u 


V. 

© 

a* E 
E ® 

S +•> 
3 3 

'jT © 
^ © 

cZ 


_© 

© 

{*) 


.2 

© 

© 


i- 

o 

© 

■*- 

v> 

3 

£ 


a 

£ 

O © 

>. O* 
i h 

e« 

3 

© 

3 


*- S- 

o © 

© X 

’©* E 
*- © 
a, z 


00 2 


c 

C3 o 


3 

© 

u. 

H 


© c 
•n ^ © 

S >, C 

■f S 
S’© - © 

c & * % 

■S -2 c2 


© 


C3 c 
4 —* rr 


oO 3 

E -5 
~ © 


£ 

<D 

— 

cd 

03 

•4—* 

03 

<D 

O 

c 

OJ 


'5.-2 c 

8 l.i 

O. 3 


E E 


.2 

© 

CL 


C 

© 

E 

4—* 

3 

© 


© 

l— 

4—> 

c 

© 

© 

x 


X 

~So 


r- 

<N 

o 


_o 

X 


© 

4-4 

3 

£ 

© 

C 

3 

O 

u. 

a 


t© 

-o 

c 

3 

X 


OO 


> C 
> o 

i- .E 
JO © 

s_ © 

O !© 

C/2 • — 

© "O 
3 O 

© E 

© I 

X) ^ 

"O is 

© 3 

X c/2 


S3 _ 

© *S. 

.O °i* 

O § 
O 1- 

m x 
m *-* 

—i 3 

. „ x 


3 

© 

X 


C/2 

© 

E 


o -E 

o »2 n 

"S > 

3 


X 

'So 


r i 

o 

c 

d 

V 


X 

'Si) 

E 

OO 

o 

d 


< 

U 


_o 

(X 


© _ 

■3 S3 
© X 
£ OX) 

"O o 
s *5 

3 X 

2 

a 


(N 


3 

3 

£ 

3 

< 

© 

© 

> 

4-4 

© 

< 

© 

*4 

3 

£ 

OJj 

3 

12 

3 


rn 


2 c 


3 _ 

E ^ 

E E — 


C/2 


3 


C/2 

© 


© ’C 
© © 
3 
> 


o 
« S 
© > 

§ 


C .3 


© 1/2 
3 3 

o E 
£ 2 

H 3 


C 

T3 

© © 
© > 
J3 © 

Q. 

© 


-J 

'Si) 

^4 

3 

ro 

O 

C 

d 

V 


-J 

'Si) 


ro 

X 

© 

d 


3 

X 


© 

4-4 

3 

OX) 

3 

12 

c 


ro 


<N 


3 

3 


_3 

3 

© 

© 

3 

> 

© 

< 


j-4 

~Si) 

E 

X 

o 

d 

V 


r- 

oo 

O' 

d tJ 

' OX) 
31- £ 

o 

d 


3 

X 


© 

3 

OX) 

c 

12 

c 


oo 


3 

3 

E 

_3 

3 

© 
© 
4—» 

3 
> 
4 —• 
© 

< 


op 

E 

in 

(N 

o 


o 

d 


'Sp 

r" 

c 

rn 

o 


x: ° 
C £ 

[3 

*4 .« 

© t- 

« to 
O 3 

CU 3 


3 

IX 


© 

4—* 

03 

OX) 

3 

12 

3 




m 


—* .2 
r- "O 

•3 © 

i e 

^ r 


03 


c/5 


a> 

•o *C 

<D (U 

3 M 
> _B 

4-4 

O C/5 

3 3 

o £ 
£ .5 

H s 


03 

4-* 

_ C/5 

C x- 

q 

C (D 

-5 >> 

3 ^ 

© ^ 
© ^ 

J ^ 

X 

© 


i-J 

^i) 

E 

rn 

o 

o 

d 

V 


OX) 

£ 

O' 

3- 

© 


3 

X 


© 

4-4 

3 

£ 

OX) 

3 

12 

3 


X 


rn 


3 

3 

E 

_E 

3 

© 

© 

4-4 

3 

> 

*© 

© 

< 


OX) 

£ 

© 

© 

© 


<N 

X 

© 

d J 

• 0X) 

E 

© 

© 


X 

Z 

o 

CQ 


3 

X 


© -44 

3 ^3 
5 x 

£ OX) 

OX) © 
3 © 

12 5 

3 sr 


3 


OX) 

3 

12 

'S 

*C 

a 


t 

,© 

•— 

jo 

3 

3 

3 

u. 

a 


© 

© 

'2 

o 

© 

>2 

X 


X 

'So 


© 

© 

V 


X 

'So 

E 

m 

© 


X 4 

X 3 

E ~ 
a © 

Z CQ 
© 

3 


c 

03 

E 

x. 

0 ^ 


3 © a 
x CJ 

Ih 

T 


3 

X 


© 

3 

OX) 

3 

12 

3 


OO 















































Table 11.1 

Adsorption Treatment Performance Data for Arsenic (continued) 


D 

cv 

- 

s 

o 


V 3 

V 

o 


£ .2 

C Q. 

.2 *C 
c. S 

o> 

o Q 

V! 

T3 
< 


.2 § 

S 

% 55 

< S 

CD 

11 

U. Cj 


u 

•5 ® 

<u -t; 

V! £ 

J- 

c 

— D 

55 (v 

1 § 


o § 

E ® 

55 C5 

Z 2 

w 

-2 J 
53 


55 

O 

(/3 


.2 

■S 

o 


!■ 

c 

D 

■** 

v> 

55 

£ 


<D 

IZ 

Sh 

© 4/ 

£ H 

V! 

3 

■o 

c 


_ i™ 

o CD 

3 £ 

‘c E 

£ z 


*n 


-o 

2 

3 

o 

o 

I 

CD 

"2 

'x 

o 


© 

o 

© 


CD 
X 
•— 
c 

vi 

-a 

53 

© 

CD 
X 

© 

CD 
X 

‘£ ^ 


-.*8 
® S 


© w 
— v> 

3 CD 
C. C 


© 

<D 

© 

<d 

<d 

o 

X 

CD 

■*—» 

c 

aj 


o <d © 

a. o 

C 3 > 

-T—• 

c/3 © 

> « 

« CD 

c 


o 

"E 

<d 

V) 

l_ 

3 

-J 

'So 


o 


CD _ 
D © 
,G © 

13 
© 


00 

r- 

C 


V 


00 

£ 

oo 


CD 

i—t 

<33 

£ 

00 

c 

x 

c 


© 


© 


L- <u 
2 T3 


CO O 

— I— 

3 T3 

3 >, 

£ . 


a 


-J 

'oo 

E 

© 

© 

© 


-J 

'ob 


© 

oc 


£ 


o 

—i 

CO 

£ 

00 

c 

x 

c 

•— 

O 


© 

<n 


© 


« 


<u 

■— 

o 

C/3 

© 

53 

© 

CD 

X 

© 

<d 

x 


c 

CO 

l~ 

00 

<d 

© 

X 

o 


,o» 


00 

E 

CO 

© 

© 


00 

E 

<N 

© 

© 


3 

U. 


<D 
«—• 
CS 

£ 

00 

c 

x 


(N 


i 

L. 

4» 

55 

£ 

ex 

3 

22 

c 

u 

O 


C/3 

JD 

3 

C 

3 

s- 

00 

Q 

c 

'n 


<d 

© 

© 

o 

u 


-J 

'oo 

E 

© 

© 


— 

'ob 

E 

CTj 


o 

cz 

z 

oo 

c 

.X 

3 


13 2 30 

C/3 <D 
C/3 • — 


a> 

3 > 

• 2 -o 
o w 
E-.n 
o 

C/3 

© 

< 


© */~> 

o 

Om ~T* 

zu "Sj 
c 

? <^3 


3 

C/3 
C/3 

2 - T3 

^ o 2 

u c 


CO 


3 

c 

2 

E 

Q 

< 


o 

© 


2 

00 

c 

3 


ro 

(N 


<U 
*—< 
C3 

E 

o 

,1-1 

o 

E 

<l» 

C/3 

l. 

CO 

a/ 

> 

o 

E 

5J 


_o 

3 


_o 

— 

CO 


O 

aj 

© 

o 

CJ 

r— 

o 
-*—* 
CO 


o 

<L» 


3 

© 

X 

o 

<u 

op 

E 


c 

o 

c" 

o 


o 

c/3 

© 

53 


C 

_o 

. 55 

2 .E 
g 2 

s i 

eo « 
2 55 


<u 


>» 

o 


S & 

C/3 C 
■ CD 


C/3 

<D 

C/3 

C/3 

CD 

O 

O 


o 
3 
(D 
X 

00 
3 

© 

_3 

O 
X 

UJ 00 


D 

£ 

o 


C/3 

•— C/3 

S« CD 

>3 


53 

C 

CO 

2 

C/3 

D 53 

X £ 
53 -1 

© co 
5 O 
a H 


c 

_o 

O 

C3 

•— 

>< 

(U 

0 ) 

C/3 

C3 


O " || 

z < H 

II ^ w 

: H ^ 


C3 

op u) 
.£ o 

~ lx 

50 1 - 

D <D 

— © 


C/3 C 

•C £ 

2 eb 
o> © 

C0 - 

« £ 

X ~ 

w II 
>• oo 

•- X 

o 


13 © 

X 
(D 


00 
E 

b“ 


Cl "S 

X o 

^ 2 

f— © 


C/3 

D 


O 

X 

o 

— 

D 


CO X 


3 

e o 
P 


o 

© 

2 a 
a £ 
> 2 
© x 

o UJ 

3 


< t 

< UJ 


© 


<D 

> 

O 

o 

(D 

© 

C 

3 

C 

G 

3 

i— > 

43 L. 

■3 CD 
© c/3 

. C 

b © 

© u 

C/3 (D 

i 2 

3 3 

.& s 

— D 

•i? 

QJ o 
c. aL < 


>3 

3 

© 

Li 

CD 

© 

>3 g 

■S I 

§. a 

C/3 £ 

c 2 

o © 

"co £ 
00 c 


II 

© ■& 









































































Model of an Ion Exchange System 


12.0 ION EXCHANGE TREATMENT FOR 
ARSENIC 


Summary 

Ion exchange has been used to treat groundwater 
and drinking water containing arsenic. Based on the 
information collected to prepare this report, this 
technology typically can reduce arsenic 
concentrations to less than 0.050 mg/L and in some 
cases has reduced arsenic concentrations to below 
0.010 mg/L. Its effectiveness is sensitive to a 
variety of untreated water contaminants and 
characteristics. It is used less frequently than 
precipitation/coprecipitation, and is most commonly 
used to treat groundwater and drinking water, or as a 
polishing step for other water treatment processes. 



Technology Description and Principles 

The medium used for ion exchange is typically a resin 
made from synthetic organic materials, inorganic 
materials, or natural polymeric materials that contain 
ionic functional groups to which exchangeable ions are 
attached (Ref. 12.3). Four types of ion exchange media 
have been used (Ref. 12.1): 

• Strong acid 

• Weak acid 

• Strong base 

• Weak base 


range, strong base resins are typically used for arsenic 
treatment (Ref. 12.1). 

Resins may also be categorized by the ion that is 
exchanged with the one in solution. For example, 
resins that exchange a chloride ion are referred to as 
chloride-form resins. Another way of categorizing 
resins is by the type of ion in solution that the resin 
preferentially exchanges. For example, resins that 
preferentially exchange sulfate ions are referred to as 
sulfate-selective. Both sulfate-selective and nitrate- 
selective resins have been used for arsenic removal 
(Ref. 12.1). 


Strong and weak acid resins exchange cations while 
strong and weak base resins exchange anions. Because 
dissolved arsenic is usually in an anionic form, and 
weak base resins tend to be effective over a smaller pH 


Technology Description: Ion exchange is a 
physical/chemical process in which ions held 
electrostatically on the surface of a solid are 
exchanged for ions of similar charge in a solution. 
It removes ions from the aqueous phase by the 
exchange of cations or anions between the 
contaminants and the exchange medium (Ref. 12.1, 
12.4, 12.8). 

Media Treated: 

• Groundwater 

• Surface water 

• Drinking water 

Exchange Media Used in Ion Exchange to Treat 
Arsenic: 

• Strong base anion exchange resins 


The resin is usually packed into a column, and as 
contaminated water is passed through the column, 
contaminant ions are exchanged for other ions such as 
chloride or hydroxide in the resin (Ref. 12.4). Ion 
exchange is often preceded by treatments such as 
filtration and oil-water separation to remove organics, 
suspended solids, and other contaminants that can foul 
the resins and reduce their effectiveness. 

Ion exchange resins must be periodically regenerated to 
remove the adsorbed contaminants and replenish the 
exchanged ions (Ref. 12.4). Regeneration of a resin 
occurs in three steps: 

• Backwashing 

• Regeneration with a solution of ions 

• Final rinsing to remove the regenerating solution 

The regeneration process results in a backwash 
solution, a waste regenerating solution, and a waste 
rinse water. The volume of spent regeneration solution 
ranges from 1.5 to 10 percent of the treated water 
volume depending on the feed water quality and type of 
ion exchange unit (Ref. 12.4). The number of ion 
exchange bed volumes that can be treated before 


12-1 






















regeneration is needed can range from 300 to 60,000 
(Ref. 12.1). The regenerating solution may be used up 
to 25 times before treatment or disposal is required. 

The final rinsing step usually requires only a few bed 
volumes of water (Ref. 12.4). 

Ion exchange can be operated using multiple beds in 
series to reduce the need for bed regeneration; beds first 
in the series will require regeneration first, and fresh 
beds can be added at the end of the series. Multiple 
beds can also allow for continuous operation because 
some of the beds can be regenerated while others 
continue to treat water. Ion exchange beds are typically 
operated as a fixed bed, in which the water to be treated 
is passed over an immobile ion exchange resin. One 
variation on this approach is to operate the bed in a non- 
fixed, countercurrent fashion in which water is applied 
in one direction, usually downward, while spent ion 
exchange resin is removed from the top of the bed. 
Regenerated resin is added to the bottom of the bed. 

This method may reduce the frequency of resin 
regeneration (Ref. 12.4). 

Media and Contaminants Treated 

Anion exchange resins are used to remove soluble 
forms of arsenic from wastewater, groundwater, and 
drinking water (Ref. 12.1, 12.4). Ion exchange 
treatment is generally not applicable to soil and waste. 

It is commonly used in drinking water treatment for 
softening, removal of calcium, magnesium, and other 
cations in exchange for sodium, as well as removing 
nitrate, arsenate, chromate, and selenate (Ref. 12.9). 

Type, Number, and Scale of Identified Projects 
Treating Water Containing Arsenic 

Ion exchange of arsenic and groundwater, surface 
water, and drinking water is commercially available. 
Information is available on seven full-scale applications 
(Figure 12.1), including three applications to 
groundwater and surface water, and four applications to 
drinking water. No pilot-scale applications or 
applications to industrial wastewater were found in the 
sources researched. 

Summary of Performance Data 

Table 12.1 presents the performance data found for this 
technology. Ion exchange treatment effectiveness can 
be evaluated by comparing influent and effluent 
contaminant concentrations. The single surface water 
project with both influent and effluent arsenic 
concentration data had an influent concentrations of 
0.0394 mg/L, and an effluent concentration of 0.0229 
mg/L. Of the three drinking water projects with both 


Figure 12.1 

Scale of Identified Ion Exchange Projects for 
Arsenic Treatment 



influent and effluent concentration data, all had influent 
concentrations greater than 0.010 mg/L. Effluent 
concentrations of less than 0.010 mg/L were 
consistently achieved in only one of these projects. 

Projects that did not reduce arsenic concentrations to 
below 0.050 or 0.010 mg/L do not necessarily indicate 
that ion exchange cannot achieve these levels. The 
treatment goal for some applications could have been 
above these levels and the technology may have been 
designed and operated to meet a higher arsenic 
concentration. Information on treatment goals was not 
collected for this report. 


Factors Affecting Ion Exchange Performance 

• Valence state - As(III) is generally not 
removed by ion exchange (Ref. 12.4). 

• Presence of competing ions - Competition for 
the exchange ion can reduce the effectiveness 
of ion exchange if ions in the resin are replaced 
by ions other than arsenic, resulting in a need 
for more frequent bed regeneration (Ref. 12.1, 
12.9). 

• Fouling - The presence of organics, suspended 
solids, calcium, or iron, can cause fouling of 
ion exchange resins (Ref. 12.4). 

• Presence of trivalent iron - The presence of 
Fe (III) could cause arsenic to form complexes 
with the iron that are not removed by ion 
exchange (Ref. 12.1). 

• pH - For chloride-form, strong-base resins, a 
pH in the range of 6.5 to 9 is optimal. Outside 
of this range, arsenic removal effectiveness 
decreases quickly (Ref. 12.1). 


12-2 












The case study at the end of this section further 
discusses the use of ion exchange to remove arsenic 
from drinking water. Information for this project is 
summarized in Table 12.1, Project 1. 

Applicability, Advantages, and Potential Limitations 

For ion exchange systems using chloride-form resins, 
the treated water could contain increased levels of 
chloride ions and as a result be corrosive. Chlorides 
can also increase the redox potential of iron, thus 
increasing the potential for water discoloration if the 
iron is oxidized. The ion exchange process can also 
lower the pH of treated waters (Ref. 12.4). 

For ion exchange resins used to remove arsenic from 
water, the spent regenerating solution might contain a 
high concentration of arsenic and other sorbed 
contaminants, and could be corrosive. Spent resin is 
produced when the resin can no longer be regenerated. 
The spent resin may require treatment prior to reuse or 
disposal (Ref. 12.8). 

The order for exchange for most strong-base resins is 
provided below, with the constituents with the greatest 
adsorption preference appearing at the top left (Ref. 
12.4). 

HCrOT > Cr0 4 2 ' > CIO; > Se0 4 2 ' > S0 4 2 ' > N0 3 > Br' 

> (HP0 4 2 -, HAs0 4 2 \ Se0 3 2 ', C0 3 2 ) > CN > NOf > Cl > 
(H 2 P0 4 \ H 2 As0 4 \ HC0 3 ) > OH’ > CH 3 COO > F 

The effectiveness of ion exchange is also sensitive to a 
variety of contaminants and characteristics in the 
untreated water, and organics, suspended solids, 
calcium, or iron can cause fouling. Therefore, it is 
typically applied to groundwater and drinking water, 
which are less likely to contain fouling contaminants. It 
may also be used as a polishing step for other water 
treatment technologies. 

More detailed information on selection and design of 
arsenic treatment systems for small drinking water 
systems is available in the document “. Arsenic 
Treatment Technology Design Manual for Small 
Systems “ (Ref. 12.10). 

Summary of Cost Data 

One project reported a capital cost for an ion exchange 
system of $6,886 with an additional $2,000 installation 
fee (Ref. 12.9, cost year not provided). The capacity of 
the system and O&M costs were not reported. Cost 
data for other projects using ion exchange were not 
found. 


Factors Affecting Ion Exchange Costs 

• Bed regeneration - Regenerating ion 
exchange beds reduces the amount of waste for 
disposal and the cost of operation (Ref. 12.1). 

• Sulfate - Sulfate (S0 4 ) can compete with 
arsenic for ion exchange sites, thus reducing 
the exchange capacity of the ion exchange 
media for arsenic. This can result in a need for 
more frequent media regeneration or 
replacement, and associated higher costs (Ref. 
12 . 1 ). 

• Factors affecting ion exchange performance 

- Items in the “Factors Affecting Ion Exchange 
Performance” box will also affect costs. 


The document" Technologies and Costs for Removal of 
Arsenic From Drinking Water " (Ref. 12.1) contains 
additional information on the cost of ion exchange 
systems to treat arsenic in drinking water to levels 
below the revised MCL of 0.010 mg/L. The document 
includes capital and O&M cost curves for ion exchange 
at various influent sulfate (S0 4 ) concentrations. These 
cost curves are based on computer cost models for 
drinking water treatment systems. 

The curves estimate the costs for ion exchange 
treatment systems with different design flow rates. The 
document also contains information on the disposal cost 
for residuals from ion exchange. Table 3.4 in Section 3 
of this document contains cost estimates based on these 
curves for ion exchange. Many of the technologies 
used to treat drinking water are applicable to treatment 
of other types of water, and may have similar costs. 


Case Study: National Risk Management 
Research Laboratory Study 

A study by EPA ORD’s National Risk Management 
Research Laboratory tested an ion exchange system 
at a drinking water treatment plant. Weekly 
sampling for one year showed that the plant 
achieved an average of 97 percent arsenic removal. 
The resin columns were frequently regenerated 
(every 6 days). Influent arsenic concentrations 
ranged from 0.045 to 0.065 mg/L and effluent 
concentrations ranged from 0.0008 to 0.0045 mg/L 
(Ref. 12.9) (see Project 1, Table 12.1). 


12-3 






References 


12.1 U.S. EPA. Technologies and Costs for 
Removal of Arsenic From Drinking Water. 
EPA-R-00-028. Office of Water. December, 
2000. http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ars/ 
treatments_and_costs.pdf 

12.2 U.S. EPA. Arsenic & Mercury - Workshop on 
Removal, Recovery, Treatment, and Disposal. 
Office of Research and Development. EPA- 
600-R-92-105. August 1992. 
http://www.epa.gov/ncepihom 

12.3 Federal Remediation Technologies Reference 
Guide and Screening Manual, Version 3.0. 
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable 
(FRTR). 

http://www.frtr.gov/matrix2/top_page.html. 

12.4 U.S. EPA. Regulations on the Disposal of 
Arsenic Residuals from Drinking Water 
Treatment Plants. EPA-600-R-00-025. Office 
of Research and Development. May 2000. 
http://www.epa.gov/ncepihom 

12.5 Tidwell, L.G., et al. Technologies and Potential 
Technologies for Removing Arsenic from 
Process and Mine Wastewater. Presented at 
"REWAS'99." San Sebastian, Spain. 

September 1999. 

http://www.mtech.edu/metallurgy/arsenic/ 

REWASAS%20for%20proceedings99%20in%2 

Oword.pdf 

12.6 U.S. EPA. Final Best Demonstrated Available 
Technology (BDAT) Background Document for 
K031, K084, K101, K102, Characteristic 
Arsenic Wastes (D004), Characteristic 
Selenium Wastes (DO 10), and P and U Wastes 
Containing Arsenic and Selenium Listing 
Constituents. Office of Solid Waste. May 
1990. 

12.7 U.S. EPA. Groundwater Pump and Treat 
Systems: Summary of Selected Cost and 
Performance Information at Superfund-financed 
Sites. EPA-542-R-01 -021 b. EPA OSWER. 
December 2001. http://clu-in.org 

12.8 Murcott, S. Appropriate Remediation 
Technologies for Arsenic-Contaminated Wells 
in Bangladesh. Massachusetts Institute of 
Technology. February 1999. 
http://web.rnit.edu/civenv/html/people/faculty/ 
murcott.html 

12.9 U.S. EPA. Arsenic Removal from Drinking 
Water by Ion Exchange and Activated Alumina 
Plants. EPA-600-R-00-088. Office of Research 
and Development. October 2000. 
http://www.epa.gOv/ORD/WebPubs/exchange/E 
PA600R00088.pdf 


12.10 U.S. EPA. Arsenic Treatment Technology 

Design Manual for Small Systems (100% Draft 
for Peer Review). June 2002. 
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/smallsys/ 
arsenicdesignmanualpeerreviewdraft.pdf 


12-4 


Table 12.1 

Ion Exchange Treatment Performance Data for Arsenic 


© 

3 

© 

C/0 


.2 

■5 

« = 
S | 
© 

OX 


k. 5 
e 2 
7" S— 
© © 
6 X £■ 
, © S 

W - 

c 

© 


« 

x 

© 


© 

•= e 

TO O 

© 

U TO 

< t 

V © 

- 2 
« c 
© © 


e 

T3 -2 

Si M a 

TO C i 

© © '3 
•3 k.© 
= < e 
^ © 


c/3 

V) 

© © 
©X © 
= © 
TO > 

X B- 

s s 

u TO 

c — 


s- 

© 

ll 

5 +- 
« sj 

Z w 

r © 

B J 

c73 


_© 

to 

© 

<*> 


s_ 

© 

© 


53 


■© 

i/i © 

53 


© 

•** 

00 

© 

o 


© 

c. 


t H 

(/i 

s 

■c 

c 


•k- s- 

o © 

© X 

•S 5 E 

»- 3 
^ Z 


ext 

c 

2 

.e 

"u 

o 


(N 


© 

> 

© 

T3 

© 

53 


C/3 

>1 

53 

"O 


© 

© VO 

M 

© 

T3 

© 

OQ 


c-J 

^X) 

r- 

c 

rn 

O 

o 

o 

V 


>n 

vo 

o 

• TO 

O _) 

1 '£ij 
o c 
TO- “ 
O 

o 


•E <*. 
5 o 
■*-* £0 

c .S 

© 

E 

4—* 

03 
D 

j_ 

f— 


C/3 

c 

o 

o 


53 

• S 

B N X § 

E 3 2 *o - 2 

3 5 * 2 "© 

‘55 ex o | © 

c/3 c -a o x 

« s) e O t3 

" £ TO ,o © 


o — — 

O. »- 22 

© TO 

a. © 
© 


© 


x 

"p 


ob c 


E 

© 

C/3 

H 

C/3 

© 

Ml 

C 

53 

X 

© 

X 

© 


3 

Ll. 


M 

C k. 
.3 © 

12 

■q =* 


(N 


O 

oo 

o 

o M . 

. ^ 
m W> 

§ S 

o 

V 


m 

m 

o 

• TO 

o X 

1 'So 

On £ 

© 

o 


53 


c 

© 

E 

53 

© 

k. 

F— 


o 

C/3 

C3 

O 

M 

TO 


C 

53 

X 

-a 

© 

£ 

o 


3 ,0 


2 

-a 

© 

E 

M 

TO 

"n 

-a 


oo 

c 

o 

o 


© 


© 

M 

TO 

53 _ 

© © 

C 

_o 

"S 

53 


3 

U_ 


M 

C k. 
•-. © 
X TO 
3 53 

5 s 


(N 


ON 

ni 


-a 

1/3 

© 

-4-* 

53 

k. 


© 

X 

TO 

i 

k. 

C3 

© 

’ 

© 

C 

k- 

© 


TO 

o 

© 



© 

• ^ 

C 

© 

\— 

u 

M 

© 

<U 

M 

D 

53 

k- 

4—* 

© 

© 

£ 

z 

O 

-*_/ 

C/5 

3 

TO 


w 

TO 

•o 

<3 

c/5 

© 

© 



© 

> 

Q. 

C/5 

<L> 

DC 

© 

oo 

<L) 



in 

•TO 

o 

o 

O X 
I TOO 
oo £ 
O 

o 

o 


in 

VO 

O 

O kJ 
• bfl 
m P 
TO 
O 

o 


© c 
00 -3 

CO 

O <u 


c/5 

X M © 
v e 3 
X' TO -C 

^ © 2 

2 © © 

«g 


3 

X 


M 

C k- 

■P © 

c 173 


m 


oo 

(N 


© 


© 


kJ 

'oo 

E 

(N 

O 

o 


© 

2 X 


k. 

o 

X 

u 


.E © 

c/j M 
© C 

k- 53 
© X 

i/l © 

TO X 

© 


op c a. 
c o 

2 c 

« C3 


3 

U. 


M 

C k. 

•- © 

c ^ 


<N 

(N 


kJ 

~00 

E 

ON 

<N 

(N 

O 


'So 

E 

TO¬ 

ON 

<n 

o 

o 


c 

o 

53 

U CO 

-o .TO 

E 05 

C 1 - H 

.o 

S 

< 


r 


C/5 


3 


53 

T3 


O 
© 

TO 
^ TO 

> u 


3 

U~ 


© 

03 

£ 

© 

© 

-TO 

•— 

3 

00 


© 

C/3 


CL 

-a 

o 

o 

£ 


*o 


<D 

(U 

4—> 

4-* 

(33 

03 

E 

o 

C 

C/5 

— 

U. 


03 

O 

Uh 

«4-H 

<D 

o 

CL 


CL 


O 

Cl 

o 

C/5 



cn 


r~; 

ri 


c -2 JS § 

'3«3 c ° 

^^o-oo 


00 2 TO TO 

E ^ • 5^ e x 

c ■- o © 

h.O' 5 x 

o. £ 53 a/ 

Q. E 
12 


TO 
© 

4—< . ^ 

2 ^ 

c 

(X o k- 


•TO CL 


M 

TO 

53 





c 

•—> 



£ 

T3 — 

Z 


3 

03 

c X 


© 

E 

£ 

o 

U- 

C/5 

a i 

U Vh 

D. 

X 

03 

TO 

TO 

© Ci. 

C/5 

TO 

X 

TO 

3 

M 

op 

O- . 
3 © 
LO .03 

TO 

O 



s 

CO 

H 


3 

X 


k. 

© "O 

•4—* CO 


Cl 

M 


53 

-TO O 

c S 

3 O 

2 5 TO 

a ^ 


53 

C/5 

O 

a. 

C/5 

•5 

0) 

4—> 

C/5 

cd 




12-5 






































Table 12.1 

Ion Exchange Treatment Performance Data for Arsenic (continued) 


at 

at 

•~ 

3 

O 

tS) 


r~~ 


.2 

■5 

a> e 

s| § 

&g s 

C s s 
2 e £ 
~ a* o 

« W> «S 

x OI 3 

w a: " 


at 

’£ O 

a« 

t/i '*■* 
i- S3 

< i 

s 

at 

a» 

s c 
at o 


-a 

at 


s 

T3 ~ 

2 .2 « 
« c i 
at v "S 

b XL 5 

« < g 

^ O 

U 


Site Name or 
Location 

McCormick 
and Baxter 
Creosoting 

Co. Superfund 
Site, Portland, 
OR 


, 

«s 

3 

CJ 

m 

X 


& 

i* 

a* a< 
OX) a> 

c o 
55 

XI 0 * 

a s 

W « 

11 


03 


c 

<D 

£ 

03 

at 

s— 

E— 


0- 

c 

o 

o 

OX) 

3 

c 

4—* 

o 

C/2 


c7i 

e3 

c 

o 

u. 

4—* 

0) 



c 

-o .2 

§ £- 

o 

C/2 

-a 

c3 


at 

00 

c 

03 


at 


c 

o 

X) 

1— 

C3 

at 


« 


a. 

C 

b '-5 

!/: at 
03 <5 

£ * 


a> 

•4—» 

03 

£ 

"O 

c 

3 

O ^ 
s- 'T 

a 


-a 

Cl 

0X> 

o 

o 

o 


at 


C A 

im 

o a> 

ss ^ 

3 

■e 

C 


OX) 

c 


at 

C/3 

at 

i- 

D- 

-a 

o 

o 

£ 


o 

at X 

'o’ £ 

3 

^ z 


r~- 


at 

0X) 

c 

03 

X 

at 

x 

D 

C 

_o 

o 

c 

at 

i- 

3 

■*—» 

03 


C/2 

C 

_o 

4—» 

3 

at 

Q- 

o 


c 

3 

OX) 

_c 

-£ 

_3 

at 

c 


_c 

C3 


c 


, 

01 



£ 


c/5 

■4—» 



03 



<D 


03 

•— 


C 

•4—» 


03 



<D 

c 

_aj 

to 

03 

<L> 

X 

£ 

J-t 

3 


£ 

£ 

03 

■4—» 

a> 

> 

o 

— 

03 

3 

4—* 

H 

II 

03 

o 

-4—* 

03 

Z 

< 

O 

II 

£ 

c3 

1 

H 



<D 


-4—* 


— 


J— < 

>4 

(D 


Q- 

-a 

C/5 

u. 

01 

£ 

D. 

03 

H 

C/2 

SD 

C 

* ^ 

o 


”£ 

£ 

OX) 

ll 

II 

-J 

-a 

pH 

OX) 

'ob 

£ 

















13.0 PERMEABLE REACTIVE BARRIERS 
FOR ARSENIC 


Summary 

Permeable reactive barriers (PRBs) are being used 
to treat arsenic in groundwater at full scale at only a 
few sites. Although many candidate materials for 
the reactive portion of the barrier have been tested at 
bench scale, only zero valent iron and limestone 
have been used at full scale. The installation 
techniques for PRBs are established for depths less 
than 30 feet, and require innovative installation 
techniques for deeper installations. 


Technology Description and Principles 

PRBs are applicable to the treatment of both organic 
and inorganic contaminants. The former usually are 
broken down into carbon dioxide and water, while the 
latter are converted to species that are less toxic or less 
mobile. The most frequent applications of PRBs is the 
in situ treatment of groundwater contaminated with 
chlorinated solvents. A number of different treatment 
media have been used, the most common being zero- 
valent iron (ZVI). Other media include hydrated lime, 
slag from steelmaking processes that use a basic oxygen 
furnace, calcium oxides, chelators (ligands selected for 
their specificity for a given metal), iron oxides, 
sorbents, substitution agents (e.g., ion exchange resins) 


Technology Description: Permeable reactive 
barriers (PRBs) are walls containing reactive media 
that are installed across the path of a contaminated 
groundwater plume to intercept the plume. The 
barrier allows water to pass through while the media 
remove the contaminants by precipitation, 
degradation, adsorption, or ion exchange. 

Media Treated: 

• Groundwater (in situ) 

Chemicals and Reactive Media Used in PRBs to 
Treat Arsenic: 

• Zero valent iron (ZVI) 

• Limestone 

• Basic oxygen furnace slag 

• Surfactant modified zeolite 

• Ion exchange resin 

Installation Depth: 

• Up to 30 feet deep using established techniques 

• Innovative techniques required for depths 
greater than 30 feet 


and microbes (Ref. 13.6, 13.8, 13. 18). The cost of the 
reactive media will impact the overall cost of PRB 
remedies. The information sources used for this report 
included information about PRB applications using 
ZVI, basic oxygen furnace slag, limestone, surfactant 
modified zeolite, and ion exchange resin to treat 
arsenic. 



13-1 


























For the PRB projects identified for this report, ZVI was 
the most commonly used reactive media. As 
groundwater reacts with ZVI, pH increases. Eh 
decreases, and the concentration of dissolved hydrogen 
increases. These basic chemical changes promote a 
variety of processes that impact contaminant 
concentrations. Increases in pH favor the precipitation 
of carbonates of calcium and iron as well as insoluble 
metal hydroxides. Decreases in Eh drive reduction of 
metals and metalloids with multiple oxidation states. 
Finally, an increase in the partial pressure of hydrogen 
in subsurface systems supports the activity of various 
chemotrophic organisms that use hydrogen as an energy 
source, especially sulfate-reducing bacteria and 
iron-reducing bacteria (Ref. 13.15). 

Arsenate [As (V)] ions bind tightly to the iron filings, 
causing the ZVI to be oxidized to ferrous iron, 
aerobically or anaerobically in the presence of water, as 
shown by the following reactions: 

(anaerobic) Fe° + 2H,0 =* Fe" 2 + H 2 + 20H" 

(aerobic) 2Fe° + 2H 2 0 + 0 2 => 2Fe +2 + 40H" 

The process results in a positively charged iron surface 
that sorbs the arsenate species by electrostatic 
interactions (Ref. 13.5, 13.17). 

In systems where dissolved sulfate is reduced to sulfide 
by sulfate-reducing bacteria, arsenic may be removed 
by the precipitation of insoluble arsenic sulfide (As 2 S 3 ) 
or co-precipitated with iron sulfides (FeS) (Ref. 13.15). 

PRBs can be constructed by excavating a trench of the 
appropriate width and backfilling it with a reactive 
medium. Commercial PRBs are built in two basic 
configurations: the funnel-and-gate and the continuous 
wall. The funnel-and-gate uses impermeable walls, for 
example, sheet pilings or slurry walls, as a “funnel” to 
direct the contaminant plume to a “gate(s)” containing 
the reactive media, while the continuous wall transects 
the flow path of the plume with reactive media (Ref. 
13.6). 

Most PRBs installed to date have had depths of 50 feet 
(ft) or less. Those having depths of 30 ft or less can be 
installed with a continuous trencher, while depths 
between 30 and 70 ft require a more innovative 
installation method, such as biopolymers. Installation 
of PRBs at depths greater than 70 ft is more challenging 
(Ref. 13.13). 

Media and Contaminants Treated 

This technology can treat both organic and inorganic 
contaminants. Organic contaminants are broken down 
into less toxic elements and compounds, such as carbon 


dioxide and water. Inorganic contaminants are 
converted to species that are less toxic or less mobile. 
Inorganic contaminants that can be treated by PRBs 
include, but are not limited to, chromium (Cr), nickel 
(Ni), lead (Pb), uranium (U), technetium (Tc), iron (Fe), 
manganese (Mn), selenium (Se), cobalt (Co), copper 
(Cu), cadmium (Cd), zinc (Zn), arsenic (As), nitrate 
(N0 3 ‘), sulfate (S0 4 2 ), and phosphate (P0 4 3 ). The 
characteristics that these elements have in common is 
that they can undergo redox reactions and can form 
solid precipitates with common groundwater 
constituents, such as carbonate (C0 3 2 '), sulfide (S 2 ), 
and hydroxide (OH"). Some common sources of these 
contaminants are mine tailings, septic systems, and 
battery recycling/disposal facilities (Ref. 13.5, 13.6, 
13.14). 

PRBs are designed to treat groundwater in situ. This 
technology is not applicable to other contaminated 
media such as soil, debris, or industrial wastes. 

Type, Number, and Scale of Identified Projects 
Treating Water Containing Arsenic 

PRBs are commercially available and are being used 
to treat groundwater containing arsenic at a full scale at 
two Superfund sites, the Monticello Mill Tailings and 
Tonolli Corporation sites, although arsenic is not the 
primary target contaminant for treatment by the 
technology at either site (Ref. 13.1). At a third 
Superfund site, the Asarco East Helena site, this 
technology has been tested at a bench scale, and 
implementation at a full scale to treat arsenic is 
currently planned (Ref. 13.15). In 1999, a pilot-scale 
treatment was conducted at Bodo Canyon Disposal Cell 
Mill Tailings Site, Durango, Colorado, to remediate 
groundwater contaminated with arsenic (Ref. 13.12). 

In addition, PRBs have been used in two bench-scale 
treatability studies by the U.S. Department of Energy’s 
Grand Junction Office (GJO) to evaluate their 
application to the Monticello Mill Tailings site and a 
former uranium ore processing site (Ref. 13.3). Figure 
13.1 shows the number of applications found at each 
scale. 

Additional bench-scale studies of the treatment of 
arsenic using PRBs that contain various reactive media 
are listed below (Ref. 13.8, 13.11). These studies were 
not conducted to evaluate the application of PRBs to 
specific sites. The organizations conducting the studies 
are listed in parentheses. However, no performance 
data are available for the studies, and therefore, they are 
not included in Figure 13.1 above, or in Table 13.1. 


13-2 


Other Bench-Scale Studies Using Adsorption or Ion 

Exchange Barriers 

• Activated alumina (Dupont) 

• Bauxite (Dupont) 

• Ferric oxides and oxyhydroxides (Dupont, 
University of Waterloo), 

• Peat, humate, lignite, coal (Dupont) 

• Surfactant-modified zeolite (New Mexico Institute 
of Mining and Technology) 

Other Bench-Scale Studies Using Precipitation Barriers 

• Ferrous hydroxide, ferrous carbonate, ferrous 
sulfide (Dupont) 

• Limestone (Dupont) 

• Zero-Valent Metals (DOE GJO) 


Figure 13.1 

Scale of Identified Permeable Reactive Barrier 
Projects for Arsenic Treatment 



0 12 3 4 5 


Summary of Performance Data 

Table 1 provides performance data for full-scale PRB 
treatment of groundwater contaminated with arsenic at 
three sites, two pilot-scale treatability study and five 
bench-scale treatability studies. PRB performance 
typically is measured by taking groundwater samples at 
points upgradient and downgradient of the wall and 
measuring the concentration of contaminants of concern 
at each point. Data on the Monticello site show a 
reduction in arsenic concentration from a range of 0.010 
to 0.013 mg/L before installation of the PRB to <0.002 
mg/L after the installation of a PRB. One pilot-scale 
study showed a reduction in arsenic concentrations 
from 0.4 mg/L to 0.02 mg/L. Four bench-scale 
treatability studies also show a reduction in arsenic 
concentrations. 


Factors Affecting PRB Performance 

• Fractured rock - The presence of fractured 
rock in contact with the PRB may allow 
groundwater to flow around, rather than 
through, the PRB (Ref. 13.6). 

• Deep aquifers and contaminant plumes - 
PRBs may be difficult to install for deep 
aquifers and contaminant plumes (>70 ft deep) 
(Ref. 13.13). 

• High aquifer hydraulic conductivity - The 

hydraulic conductivity of the barrier must be 
greater than that of the aquifer to prevent 
preferential flow around the barrier (Ref. 
13.13). 

• Stratigraphy - Site stratigraphy may affect 
PRB installation. For example, clay layers 
might be "smeared" during installation, 
reducing hydraulic conductivity near the PRB 
(Ref. 13.6). 

• Barrier plugging - Permeability and reactivity 
of the barrier may be reduced by precipitation 
products and microbial growth (Ref. 13.6). 


Applicability, Advantages, and Potential Limitations 

PRBs are a passive treatment technology, designed to 
function for a long time with little or no energy input. 
They produce less waste than active remediation (for 
example, extraction systems like pump and treat), as the 
contaminants are immobilized or altered in the 
subsurface (Ref. 13.14). PRBs can treat groundwater 
with multiple contaminants and can be effective over a 
range of concentrations. PRBs require no aboveground 
equipment, except monitoring devices, allowing return 
of the property to economic use during remediation 
(Ref. 13.5, 13.14). PRBs are best applied to shallow, 
unconfined aquifer systems in unconsolidated deposits, 
as long as the reactive material is more conductive than 
the aquifer. (Ref. 13.13). 

PRBs rely on the natural movement of groundwater; 
therefore, aquifers with low hydraulic conductivity can 
require relatively long periods of time to be remediated. 
In addition, PRBs do not remediate the entire plume, 
but only the portion of the plume that has passed 
through the PRB. Because cleanup of groundwater 
contaminated with arsenic has been conducted at only 
two Superfund sites and these barriers have been 
recently installed (Tonolli in 1998 and Monticello in 
1999), the long-term effectiveness of PRBs for arsenic 
treatment has not been demonstrated (Ref. 13.13). 


13-3 






















Case Study: Monticello Mill Tailings Site 
Permeable Reactive Barrier 

The Monticello Mill Tailings in Southeastern Utah 
is a former uranium/vanadium processing mill and 
mill tailings impoundment (disposal pit). In January 
1998, the U.S. Department of Energy completed an 
interim investigation to determine the nature and 
extent of contamination in the surface water and 
groundwater in operable unit 3 of the site. Arsenic 
was one among several contaminants in the 
groundwater, and was found at concentrations 
ranging from 0.010 to 0.013 mg/L. A PRB 
containing ZVI was constructed in June 1999 to 
treat heavy metal and metalloid contaminants in the 
groundwater. Five rounds of groundwater sampling 
occurred between June 1999 and April 2000, and 
was expected to continue on a quarterly basis until 
July 2001. The average concentration of arsenic 
entering the PRB, as measured from September to 
November 1999 was 0.010 mg/L, and the effluent 
concentration, measured in April 2000, was less 
than 0.0002 mg/L (Ref. 13.1, 13.2, 13.14) (see 
Project 2, Table 13.1). 


Summary of Cost Data 

EPA compared the costs of pump-and-treat systems at 
32 sites to the costs of PRBs at 16 sites. Although the 
sites selected were not a statistically representative 
sample of groundwater remediation projects, the capital 
costs for PRBs were generally lower than those for 
pump and treat systems (Ref. 13.13). However, at the 
Monticello site, estimates showed that capital costs for 
a PRB were greater than those for a pump-and-treat 
system, but lower operations and maintenance costs 
would result in a lower life-cycle cost to achieve similar 
cleanup goals. For the PRB at the Monticello site, total 
capital cost was $1,196,000, comprised of $1,052,000 
for construction and $144,000 for the reactive PRB 
media. Construction costs are assumed to include 
actual construction costs and not design activities or 
treatability studies (Ref. 13.14, cost year not provided). 
Cost data for the other projects described in the section 
are not available. 

References 

13.1 U.S. EPA. Treatment Technologies for Site 

Cleanup: Annual Status Report (Tenth Edition). 
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. 
EPA-542-R-01 -004. February 2001. http://clu- 
in.org 


Factors Affecting PRB Costs 

• PRB depth - PRBs at depths greater than 30 
feet may be more expensive to install, requiring 
special excavation equipment and construction 
materials (Ref. 13.13). 

• Reactive media - Reactive media vary in cost, 
therefore the reactive media selected can affect 
PRB cost. 

• Factors affecting PRB performance - Items in 
the “Factors Affecting PRB Performance” box 
will also affect costs. 


13.2 Personal communication with Paul Mushovic, 
RPM. Monticello Mill Tailings - OU3 Superfund 
site. April 20, 2001. 

13.3 U.S. Department of Energy, Grand Junction 
Office (DOE-GJO). Permeable Reactive 
Barriers: Treatability Studies. March 2000. 
http://www.doegjpo.com/. 

13.4 Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable: 
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and 
Reference Guide Version 3.0. 
http://www.frtr.gov/matrix2/top_page.html. 

13.5 Ott N. Permeable Reactive Barriers for 
Inorganics. National Network of Environmental 
Management Studies (NNEMS) Fellow. July 
2000. http://www.clu-in.org. 

13.6 U.S. EPA. Permeable Reactive Barrier 
Technologies for Contaminant Remediation. 
Office of Research and Development. EPA-600- 
R-98-125. September 1998. 
http://www.epa.gov/ncepi/Catalog/ 
EPA600R98125.html 

13.7 U.S. EPA Technology Innovation Office and 
Office of Research and Development. 
Remediation Technologies Development Forum 
(RTDF). Permeable Reactive Barrier Installation 
Profiles. January 2000. 

http://www.rtdf.org/public/permbarr/prbsumms/. 

13.8 DOE-GJO. Research and Application of 
Permeable Reactive Barriers. K0002000. April 
1998. 

http://www.gwrtac.org/pdf/penneab2.pdf 

13.9 Baker MJ, Blowes DW, Ptacek CJ. Phosphorous 
Adsorption and Precipitation in a Permeable 
Reactive Wall: Applications for Wastewater 
Disposal Systems. International Containment 
Technology Conference and Exhibition, 

February 9-12, 1997. St. Petersburg, Florida. 


13-4 





13.10 McRae CW, Blowes DW, Ptacek CJ. 
Laboratory-scale investigation of remediation of 
As and Se using iron oxides. Sixth Symposium 
and Exhibition on Groundwater and Soil 
Remediation, March 18-21, 1997. Montreal, 
Quebec, Canada. 

13.11 U.S. EPA. In Situ Remediation Technology 
Status Report: Treatment Walls. Office of Solid 
Waste and Emergency Response. EPA 542-K- 
94-004. April 1995. http://www.clu-in.org. 

13.12 U.S. EPA. Innovative Remediation 
Technologies: Field Scale Demonstration 
Projects in North America, 2 nd Edition. Office of 
Solid Waste and Emergency Response. EPA- 
542-B-00-004. June 2000. http://clu-in.org. 

13.13 U.S. EPA. Cost Analyses for Selected 
Groundwater Cleanup Projects: Pump and Treat 
Systems and Permeable Reactive Barriers. 

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. 
EPA-542-R-00-013. February 2001. http://clu- 
in.org. 

13.14 DOE. Permeable Reactive Treatment (PeRT) 
Wall for Rads and Metals. Office of 
Environmental Management, Office of Science 
and Technology. DOE/EM-0557. September 
2000. http://apps.em.doe.gov/ost/pubs/itsrs/ 
itsr2155.pdf 

13.15 Attachment to an E-mail from Rick Wilkin, U.S. 
EPA Region 8 to Linda Fiedler, U.S. EPA 
Technology Innovation Office. July 27, 2001. 

13.16 Lindberg J, Stemeland J, Johansson PO, 
Gustafsson JP. Spodic material for in situ 
treatment of arsenic in ground water. Ground 
Water Monitoring and Remediation. 17, 125-3-. 
December 1997. 

http://www.ce.kth.se/aom/amov/people/gustaljp/ 
absl l.htm 

13.17 Su, C.; Puls, R. W. Arsenate and arsenite 
removal by zerovalent iron: kinetics, redox 
transformation, and implications for in situ 
groundwater remediation. Environmental 
Science and Technology. Volume 35. pp. 1487- 
1492. 2001. 

3.18 Smyth DJ, Blowes DW, Ptacek, CJ (Department 
of Earth Sciences, University of Waterloo). 

Steel Production Wastes for Use in Permeable 
Reactive Barriers (PRBs). Third International 
Conference on Remediation of Chlorinated and 
Recalcitrant Compounds. May 20-23, 2000. 
Monterey, CA. 

13.19 Personal Communication from David Smyth, 
University of Waterloo to Sankalpa Nagaraja, 
Tetra Tech, EM Inc. August 13, 2002. 


13-5 


Table 13.1 

Permeable Reactive Barrier Arsenic Treatment Performance Data for Arsenic 


Source 

13.1, 13.7 

13.1, 13.2, 

13.14 

13.19 

13.19 

13.12 

13.3 

13.3 

13.15 

13.16 

13.18 

Project Duration 

August 1998 - 
present 

June 1999 - 
present 

June 2002 - 

present 

l 

1 

l 

2 

I 

I 

I 

l 

i 

l 

1 

Barrier Type and 
Media 

Trench, limestone 

Funnel and gate, ZVI 

Trench, basic oxygen 
furnace slag 

Trench, mixture of 
ZVI, surfactant 
modified zeolite, and 
ion exchange resin 

ZVI 

ZVI 

ZVI 

ZVI 

i 

l 

Basic oxygen furnace 

slag 

Final Arsenic 
Concentration (mg/L) 

Not available 

<0.0002 

I 

I 

0.02 mg/L 

1 

l 

o 

o 

o 

oo 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

Not available 

<0.02 mg/L 

<0.003 mg/L 

Initial Arsenic 
Concentration (mg/L) 

0.313 

0.010-0.013 

l 

I 

0.4 mg/L 

l 

I 

££'0 

0.024 

- 

1-3 mg/L 

4 mg/L 

Site Name and Location 

Tonolli Corporation Superfund 
Site, Nesquehoning, PA 

Monticello Mill Tailings - OU3, 
Monticello, UT 

Industrial Site, Chicago, IL 

Industrial Site, Northwestern 
Ontario, Canada 

Bodo Canyon Disposal Cell 
Mill Tailings Site, Durango, CO 

Former Uranium Ore Processing 
Site, Tuba City, AZ 

Monticello Mill Tailings, 
Monticello, UT 

Asarco East Helena Plant, East 
Helena, MT 

i 

l 

Scale 

Full 

Full 

Full 

Pilot 

Pilot 

Bench 

Bench 

Bench 

Bench 

_c 

o 

c 

CQ 

Project 

Number 

— 

<N 

cn 


i/~i 


r— 

00 

O' 

o 


ZV1 = Zero valent iron 
mg/L = Milligrams per liter 
— = Not available 





















IIC 

ARSENIC TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES 
APPLICABLE TO SOIL, WASTE, AND WATER 












14.0 ELECTROKINETIC TREATMENT OF 
ARSENIC 


Technology Description and Principles 

In situ electrokinetic treatment of arsenic uses the 
natural conductivity of the soil (created by pore water 
and dissolved salts) to affect movement of water, ions, 
and particulates through the soil (Ref. 14.8). Water 
and/or chemical solutions can also be added to enhance 
the recovery of metals by electrokinetics. Positively- 

Model of an Electrokinetic Treatment System 


Process Control System 




Summary 

Electrokinetic treatment is an emerging remediation 
technology designed to remove heavy metal 
contaminants from soil and groundwater. The 
technology is most applicable to soil with small 
particle sizes, such as clay. However, its 
effectiveness may be limited by a variety of 
contaminants and soil and water characteristics. 
Information sources researched for this report 
identified a limited number of applications of the 
technology to arsenic. 


Technology Description: Electrokinetic 
remediation is based on the theory that a low- 
density current will mobilize contaminants in the 
form of charged species. A current passed between 
electrodes is intended to cause water, ions, and 
particulates to move through the soil, waste, and 
water (Ref. 14.8). Contaminants arriving at the 
electrodes can be removed by means of 
electroplating or electrodeposition, precipitation or 
coprecipitation, adsorption, complexing with ion 
exchange resins, or by pumping of water (or other 
fluid) near the electrode (Ref. 14.10). 

Media Treated: 

• Soil 

• Groundwater 

• Industrial wastes 

Chemicals Used in Electrokinetic Process to 
Treat Arsenic: 

• Sulfuric Acid 

• Phosphoric Acid 

• Oxalic Acid 


14-1 


















































































charged metal or metalloid cations, such as As (V) and 
As (III) migrate to the negatively-charged electrode 
(cathode), while metal or metalloid anions migrate to 
the positively charged electrode (anode) (Ref. 14.9). 
Extraction may occur at the electrodes or in an external 
fluid cycling/extraction system (Ref. 14.11). 

Alternately, the metals can be stabilized in situ by 
injecting stabilizing agents that react with and 
immobilize the contaminants (Ref. 14.12). Arsenic has 
been removed from soils treated by electrokinetics 
using an external fluid cycling/extraction system (Ref. 
14.2, 14.18). 

This technology can also be applied ex situ to 
groundwater by passing the water between electrodes. 
The current causes arsenic to migrate toward the 
electrodes, and also alters the pH and oxidation- 
reduction potential of the water, causing arsenic to 
precipitate/coprecipitate. The solids are then removed 
from the water using clarification and filtration (Ref. 
14.21). 

Media and Contaminants Treated 

Electrokinetic treatment is an in situ treatment process 
that has had limited use to treat soil, groundwater, and 
industrial wastes containing arsenic. It has also been 
used to treat other heavy metals such as zinc, cadmium, 
mercury, chromium, and copper (Ref. 14.1, 14.4, 

14.20). 

Electrokinetic treatment may be capable of removing 
contaminants from both saturated and unsaturated soil 
zones, and may be able to perform without the addition 
of chemical or biological agents to the site. This 
technology also may be applicable to low-permeability 
soils, such as clay (Ref. 14.1, 14.4, 14.9). 

Type, Number, and Scale of Identified Projects 
Treating Soil, Waste, and Water Containing Arsenic 

The sources identified for this report contained 
information on one full-scale, three pilot-scale, and 
three bench-scale applications of electrokinetic 
remediation to arsenic. Figure 14.1 shows the number 
of applications identified at each scale. 

Summary of Performance Data 

Table 14.1 provides a performance summary of 
electrokinetic treatment of arsenic. One full-scale 
application reduced arsenic concentrations in soil from 
greater than 250 mg/kg to less than 30 mg/kg. One ex 
situ pilot-scale application reduced arsenic in 
groundwater from 0.6 mg/L to 0.013 mg/L. The case 
study at the end of this section further discusses this 


Factors Affecting Electrokinetic Treatment 

Performance 

• Contaminant properties - The applicability of 
electrokinetics to soil and water containing 
arsenic depends on the solubility of the 
particular arsenic species. Electrokinetic 
treatment is applicable to acid-soluble polar 
compounds, but not to insoluble metals (Ref. 
14.6). 

• Salinity and cation exchange capacity - The 

technology is most efficient when these 
parameters are low (Ref. 14.14). Chemical 
reduction of chloride ions at the anode by the 
electrokinetic process may also produce 
chlorine gas (Ref. 14.6). 

• Soil moisture - Electrokinetic treatment 
requires adequate soil moisture; therefore 
addition of a conducting pore fluid may be 
required (Ref. 14.7). Electrokinetic treatment is 
most applicable to saturated soils (Ref. 14.9). 
However, adding fluid to allow treatment of 
soils without sufficient moisture may flush 
contaminants out of the targeted treatment area. 

• Polarity and magnitude of the ionic charge - 
These factors affect the direction and rate of 
contaminant movement (Ref. 14.11). 

• Soil type - Electrokinetic treatment is most 
applicable to homogenous soils (Ref. 14.9). 
Fine-grained soils are more amenable to 
electrokinetic treatment due to their large 
surface area, which provides numerous sites for 
reactions necessary for electrokinetic processes 
(Ref. 14.13). 

• pH - The pH can affect process 
electrochemistry and cause precipitation of 
contaminants or other species, reducing soil 
permeability and inhibiting recovery. The 
deposition of precipitation solids may be 
prevented by flushing the cathode with water or 
a dilute acid (Ref. 14.14). 


project, and information in Table 14.1, Project 3 
summarizes the available information about it. 

Applicability, Advantages, and Potential Limitations 

Electrokinetics is an emerging technology with 
relatively few applications for arsenic treatment. It is 
an in situ treatment technology, and therefore does not 
require excavation of contaminated soil or pumping of 
contaminated groundwater. Its effectiveness may be 
limited by a variety of soil and contaminant 
characteristics, as discussed in the box opposite. In 


14-2 



addition, its treatment depth is limited by the depth to 
which the electrodes can be placed. 


Figure 14.1 

Scale of Electrokinetic Projects for Arsenic 
Treatment 


Full 

1 

1 


- 




Pilot 


3 

- 




Bench 


3 






0 12 3 4 


Summary of Cost Data 

Estimated costs of in situ electrokinetic treatment of 
soils containing arsenic range from $50 - $270 per cy 
(Ref. 14.2, 14.4, cost year not provided). The reported 
costs for one pilot-scale, ex situ treatment of 
groundwater of the treatment were $0,004 per gallon for 
total cost, and $0,002 per gallon for O&M. (Ref. 14.21) 
(see Project 3, Table 14.1). 


Factors Affecting Electrokinetic Treatment Costs 

• Contaminant extraction system - Some 
electrokinetic systems remove the contaminant 
from the subsurface using an extraction fluid. 

In such systems, the extraction fluid may 
require further treatment, which can increase 
the cost (Ref. 14.4). 

• Factors affecting electrokinetic treatment 
performance - Items in the “Factors Affecting 
Electrokinetic Treatment Performance” box 
will also affect costs. 


References 

14.1 U.S. EPA. In Situ Remediation Technology: 
Electrokinetics. Office of Solid Waste and 
Emergency Response, Technology Innovation 
Office. EPA-542-K-94-007. April 1995. 
http://clu-in.org 


Case Study: The Overpelt Project 

A pilot-scale test of electrokinetic remediation of 
arsenic in groundwater was conducted in Belgium 
in 1997. This ex situ application involved pumping 
groundwater contaminated with zinc, arsenic, and 
cadmium and treating it in an electrokinetic 
remediation system with a capacity of 6,600 gpm. 
The treatment system precipitated the 
contaminants, and the precipitated solids were 
removed using clarification and filtration. The 
electrokinetic treatment system did not use 
additives or chemicals. The treatment reduced 
arsenic concentrations in groundwater from 0.6 
mg/L to 0.013 mg/L. The reported costs of the 
treatment were $0,004 per gallon for total cost, and 
$0,002 per gallon for O&M. (Ref. 14.21) (see 
Project 3, Table 14.1). 


14.2 U.S. EPA. Database for EPA REACH IT 
(REmediation And CHaracterization Innovative 
Technologies). March 2001. 
http://www.epareachit.org. 

14.3 U.S. EPA. Electrokinetics at an Active Power 
Substation. Federal Remediation Technologies 
Roundtable. March 2000. 
http://www.frtr.gov/costperf.html. 

14.4 Electric Power Research Institute. Electrokinetic 
Removal of Arsenic from Contaminated Soil: 
Experimental Evaluation. July 2000. 
http://www.epri.com/ 
OrderableitemDesc.asp?product_id. 

14.5 Ground-Water Remediation Technologies 
Analysis Center. Technology Overview Report: 
Electrokinetics. July 1997. 
http://www.gwrtac.org/pdf/elctro_o.pdf. 

14.6 U.S. EPA. Contaminants and Remedial Options 
at Selected Metal-Contaminated Sites. Office of 
Research and Development. EPA-540-R-95- 
512. July 1995. 

http://www.epa.gov/ncepi/Catalog/ 

EPA540R95512.html 

14.7 U.S. EPA. Recent Developments for In Situ 
Treatment of Metals Contaminated Soils. 
Technology Innovation Office. Washington, 

DC. March 5, 1997. 

http://clu-in.org/download/remed/ metals2.pdf 

14.8 Will, F. "Removing Toxic Substances from Soil 
Using Electrochemistry," Chemistry and 
Industry , p. 376-379. 1995. 


14-3 




















14.9 Evanko, C.R., and D.A. Dzomback. 

Remediation of Metals-Contaminated Soils and 
Groundwater. Prepared for the Ground-Water 
Remediation Technologies Analysis Center, 
Technology Evaluation Report TE-97-01. 
October 1997. 

http://www.gwrtac.org/pdf/metals.pdf 

14.10 Lindgren, E.R., et al. "Electrokinetic 
Remediation of Contaminated Soils: An Update," 
Waste Management 92, Tucson, Arizona. 1992. 

14.11 Earthvision. "Electrokinetic Remediation," 
http://www.earthvision.net/filecomponent/ 

1727.html, as of October 1999. 

14.12 LaChuisa, L. E-mail attachment from Laurie 
LaChuisa, Electrokinetics, Inc., to Kate Mikulka, 
Science Applications International Corporation, 
Process description. August 1999. 

14.13 Acar, Y. B. and R. J. Gale. "Electrokinetic 
Remediation: Basics and Technology Status," 
Journal of Hazardous Materials, 40: p. 117-137. 
1995. 

14.14 Van Cauwenberghe, L. Electrokinetics, 
prepared for the Ground-Water Remediation 
Technologies Analysis Center, GWRTAC O 
Series Technology Overview Report TO-97-03. 
July 1997. 

http://www.gwrtac.org/pdf/elctro_o.pdf 

14.15 LaChuisa, L. E-mail from Laurie LaChuisa, 
Electrokinetics, Inc., to Kate Mikulka, Science 
Applications International Corporation, Case 
study for electrokinetic extraction/stabilization of 
arsenic. August 1999. 

14.16 LaChuisa, L. E-mail from Laurie LaChuisa, 
Electrokinetics, Inc., to Deborah R. Raja, 

Science Applications International Corporation, 
Responses to questions on Case Study. October 
13, 1999. 

14.17 LaChuisa, L. Telephone contact between Laurie 
LaChuisa, Electrokinetics, Inc., and Deborah R. 
Raja, Science Applications International 
Corporation, Responses to questions on Case 
Study. October 11, 1999. 

14.18 AAA Geokinetics - Electrokinetic Remediation. 
April 24, 2001. 

http://www.geokinetics.com/giiek.htm 

14.19 Fabian, G.L., U.S. Army Environmental Center, 
and Dr. R.M. Bricka, Waterways Experiment 
Station. "Electrokinetic Remediation at NAWS 
Point Mugu," paper presented at the 
U.S./German Data Exchange Meeting. 

September 1999. 

14.20 Florida State University - College of 
Engineering. August 2001. 
http://www.eng.fsu.edu/departments/civil/ 
research/arsenicremedia/index.htm 


14.21 Pensaert, S. The Treatment of Aquifers 
Contaminated with Arsenic, Zinc and Cadmium 
by the Bipolar Electrolysis Technique: The 
Overpelt Project. 1998. 

14.22 Ribeiro, AB, Mateus EP, Ottosen LM, Bech- 
Nielsen G. Electrodialytic Removal of Cu, Cr, 
and As from Chromated Copper Arsenate- 
Treated Timber Waste. Environmental Science 
& Technology. Vol. 34, No. 5. 2000. 
http://www. vista.gov. vn/nganhangdulieu/tapchi/c 
Iv 1899/2000/v34s5.htm 

14.23 Redwine, J.C. Innovative Technologies for 
Remediation of Arsenic in Soil and 
Groundwater. Southern Co. Services, Inc. 

August 2001. 

14.24 Markey, R. Comparison and Economic Analysis 
of Arsenic Remediation Methods Used in Soil 
and Groundwater. M.S. Thesis. FAMU-FSU 
College of Engineering. 2000. 


14-4 


Table 14.1 

Electrokinetic Treatment Performance Data for Arsenic 


Source 

14.2, 

14.18 

14.12, 

14.15, 

14.16, 

14.17 

14.21 

14.24 

14.4 

14.4 

14.22 

Electrokinetic Process 
Description 

Contaminant removed 
by recirculation of 
electrolyte through 
casing around electrodes 

I 

I 

Bipolar electrolysis, 

without use of 

additional chemicals. 

Ex situ, pump and treat 

application 

Bipolar electrolysis, 

without use of 

additional chemicals 

Addition of sulfuric acid 

to enhance 

electrokinetic process 

Addition of phosphoric 

acid to enhance 

electrokinetic process 

Electrodialytic removal, 

enhanced by addition of 

oxalic acid 

Final Arsenic Concentration 
or Treatment Results 

<30 mg/kg 

! 

0.013 mg/L 

l 

l 

4.7% of arsenic migrated to 
anode, 1.6% to cathode 

25% of arsenic migrated to 

anode, none to cathode 

27-99% removal efficiency 

Initial Arsenic 
Concentration 

> 250 mg/kg 

450 mg/kg 

0.6 mg/L 

ND- 1,400 
mg/kg 
<0.005 - 0.7 
mg/L 

113 mg/kg 

113 mg/kg 

811- 871 mg/kg 

Site Name and 
Location 

Pederok Plant 
Kwint, 
Loppersum, 
Netherlands 

j 

Belgium 

Florida 

Blackwater River 
State Forest, FL 

Blackwater River 
State Forest, FL 

Leiria, Portugal 

Scale 

Full 

Pilot 

Pilot 

Pilot 

Bench 

Bench 

Bench 

Waste or 
Media, Volume 

Soil, 325 cubic 
yards 

Soil, 690 cubic 
yards 

Groundwater 

Soil & 

Groundwater 

Soil 

Soil 

Sawdust from 
CCA-treated 
pole 

Industry or 

Site Type 

Wood Preserving 

Herbicide 

application 

Metals refining 
and smelting 

Herbicide 

application 

Cattle vat 
(pesticide) 

Cattle vat 
(pesticide) 

Wood Preserving 

Jr 








tj « 








o A 

’o’ E 

— 

<N 

m 



'O 

r- 

- s 








Z 









— = Not available 
CCA = Chromated copper arsenate 
mg/L = Milligrams per liter 
mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogram 







































15.0 PHYTOREMEDIATION TREATMENT 
OF ARSENIC 


Summary 

Phytoremediation is an emerging technology. The 
data sources used for this report contained 
information on only one applications of 
phytoremediation to treat arsenic at full scale and 
two at pilot scale. Experimental research into 
identifying appropriate plant species for 
phytoremediation is ongoing. It is generally 
applicable only to shallow soil or relatively shallow 
groundwater that can be reached by plant roots. In 
addition, the phytoremediating plants may 
accumulate high levels of arsenic during the 
phytoremediation process, and may require 
additional treatment prior to disposal. 


Technology Description and Principles 

Phytoremediation is an emerging technology generally 
applicable only to shallow contamination that can be 
reached by plant roots. Phytoremediation applies to all 
biological, chemical, and physical processes that are 
influenced by plants and the rhizosphere, and that aid in 
cleanup of the contaminated substances. 
Phytoremediation may be applied in situ or ex situ, to 
soils, sludges, sediments, other solids, or groundwater 
(Ref. 15.1, 15.4, 15.5, 15.7). The mechanisms of 
phytoremediation include phytoextraction (also known as 
phytoaccumulation, the uptake of contaminants by plant 
roots and the translocation/accumulation of contaminants 
into plant shoots and leaves), enhanced rhizosphere 
biodegradation (takes place in soil or groundwater 
immediately surrounding plant roots), phytodegradation 
(metabolism of contaminants within plant tissues), and 
phytostabilization (production of chemical 
compounds by plants to immobilize 
contaminants at the interface of roots and 
soil). The data sources used for this report 
identified phytoremediation applications for 
arsenic using phytoextraction and 
phytostabilization. 

The selection of the phytoremediating 
species depends upon the species ability to 
treat the contaminants and the depth of 
contamination. Plants with shallow roots 
(for example, grasses, corn) are appropriate 
only for contamination near the surface, 
typically in shallow soil. Plants with deeper 
roots, (for example, trees) may be capable of 
remediating deeper contaminants in soil or 
groundwater plumes. 


Technology Description: Phytoremediation is 
designed to use plants to degrade, extract, contain, 
or immobilize contaminants in soil, sediment, or 
groundwater (Ref. 15.6). Typically, trees with deep 
roots are applied to groundwater and other plants are 
used for shallow soil contamination. 

Media Treated: 

• Soil 

• Groundwater 

Types of Plants Used in Phytoremediation to 
Treat Arsenic: 

• Poplar 

• Cottonwood 

• Sunflower 

• Indian mustard 

• Com 


Examples of vegetation used in phytoremediation 
include sunflower, Indian mustard, com, and grasses 
(such as ryegrass and prairie grasses) (Ref. 15.1). Some 
plant species, known as hyperaccumulators, absorb and 
concentrate contaminants within the plant at levels 
greater than the concentration in the surrounding soil or 
groundwater. The ratio of contaminant concentration in 
the plant to that in the surrounding soil or groundwater 
is known as the bioconcentration factor. A 
hyperaccumulating fern (Pteris vittata) has been used in 
the remediation of arsenic-contaminated soil, waste, and 
water. The fern can tolerate as much as 1,500 parts per 
million (ppm) of arsenic in soil, and can have a 
bioconcentration factor up to 265. The arsenic 
concentration in the plant can be as high as 2 percent 
(dry weight) (Ref. 15.3, 15.6). 


Photosynthesis 







Transpiration 
Dark Respiration 


Uptake (and 
contaminant 
removal) 

Transpiration 


Root respiration /k Organic , 

CO + H->0^ SKs chemicals Uptake\ Degradation 

“ C..H..O, r 

Mineralization^ 


Ot + exduates 
-e.g.,CH 3 C OOH 


15-1 















Media and Contaminants Treated 

Phytoremediation has been applied to contaminants from 
soil, surface water, groundwater, leachate, and municipal 
and industrial wastewater (Ref. 15.4). In addition to 
arsenic, examples of pollutants it can potentially address 
include petroleum hydrocarbons such as benzene, 
toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX), polycyclic 
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), pentachlorophenol, 
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), chlorinated aliphatics 
(trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene, and 1,1,2,2- 
tetrachloroethane), ammunition wastes (2,4,6- 
trinitrotoluene or TNT, and RDX), metals (lead, 
cadmium, zinc, arsenic, chromium, selenium), pesticide 
wastes and runoff (atrazine, cyanazine, alachlor), 
radionuclides (cesium-137, strontium-90, and uranium), 
and nutrient wastes (ammonia, phosphate, and nitrate) 
(Ref. 15.7). 

Type, Number, and Scale of Identified Projects 
Treating Soil, Waste, and Water Containing Arsenic 

The data sources used for this report contained 
information on phytoremediation of arsenic 
contaminated soil at full scale at one Superfund site (Ref. 
15.7). Two pilot-scale applications and four bench-scale 
tests were also identified (Ref. 15.2, 15.3, 15.7-11). 
Figure 15.1 shows the number of identified applications 
at each scale. 


Figure 15.1 

Scale of Identified Phytoremediation Projects for 
Arsenic Treatment 



0 


Summary of Performance Data 

Table 15.1 provides a performance summary of the 
identified phytoremediation projects. Data on the effect 
of phytoremediation on the leachability of arsenic from 
soil were not identified. Where available. Table 15.1 
provides total arsenic concentrations prior to and 


following phytoremediation treatment. However, no 
projects with arsenic concentrations in the treated soil, 
waste, and water both prior to and after treatment were 
identified. Bioconcentration factors were available for 
one pilot- and two bench-scale studies, and ranged from 
8 to 320. 

Applicability, Advantages, and Potential Limitations 

Phytoremediation is conducted in situ and therefore 
does not require soil excavation. In addition, 
revegetation for the purpose of phytoremediation also 
can enhance restoration of an ecosystem (Ref. 15.5). 
This technology is best applied at sites with shallow 
contamination. If phytostabilization is used, the 
vegetation and soil may require long-term maintenance 
to prevent re-release of the contaminants. Plant uptake 
and translocation of metals to the aboveground portions 
of the plant may introduce them into the food chain if 
the plants are consumed (Ref. 15.5). Products could 
bioaccumulate in animals that ingest the plants (Ref. 

15.4). In addition, the toxicity and bioavailability of 
contaminants absorbed by plants and phytodegradation 
products is not always known. 

Concentrations of contaminants in hyperaccumulating 
plants are limited to a maximum of about 3% of the 


Factors Affecting Phytoremediation 

Performance 

• Contaminant depth - The treatment depth is 
limited to the depth of the plant root system 
(Ref. 15.5). 

• Contaminant concentration - Sites with low 
to medium level contamination within the root 
zone are the best candidates for 
phytoremediation processes (Ref. 15.4, 15.5). 
High contaminant concentrations may be toxic 
to the remediating flora. 

• Climatic or seasonal conditions - Climatic 
conditions may interfere or inhibit plant 
growth, slow remediation efforts, or increase 
the length of the treatment period (Ref. 15.4). 

• Contaminant form - In phytoaccumulation 
processes, contaminants are removed from the 
aqueous or dissolved phase. 

Phytoaccumulation is generally not effective on 
contaminants that are insoluble or strongly 
bound to soil particles. 

• Agricultural factors - Factors that affect plant 
growth and health, such as the presence of 
weeds and pests, and ensuring that plants 
receive sufficient water and nutrients will affect 
phytoremediation processes. 


15-2 


















plant weight on a dry weight basis. Based on this 
limitation, for fast-growing plants, the maximum annual 
contaminant removal is about 400 kg/hectare/year. 
However, many hyperaccumulating species do not 
achieve contaminant concentrations of 3%, and are slow 
growing. (Ref. 15.12) 

The case study at the end of this section further discusses 
an application of phytoremediation to the treatment to 
arsenic-contaminated soil. Information for this project is 
summarized in Table 15.1, Project 1. 

Summary of Cost Data 

Cost data specific to phytoremediation of arsenic were 
not identified. The estimated 30-year costs (1998 
dollars) for remediating a 12-acre lead site were 
$200,000 for phytoextraction (Ref. 15.15). Costs were 
estimated to be $60,000 to $100,000 using 
phytoextraction for remediation of one acre of 
20-inch-thick sandy loam (Ref. 15.14). The cost of 
removing radionuclides from water with sun-flowers has 
been estimated to be $2 to $6 per thousand gallons of 
water (Ref. 15.16). Phytostabilization system costs have 
been estimated at $200 to $ 10,000 per hectare, 
equivalent to $0.02 to $ 1.00 per cubic meter of soil, 
assuming a 1-meter root depth (Ref. 15.17). 

References 

15.1 U.S. EPA. Treatment Technologies for Site 
Cleanup: Annual Status Report (Tenth Edition). 
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. 
EPA-542-R-01 -004. February 2001. 
http://www.epa.gov/ncepi/Catalog/ 
EPA542R01004.html 

15.2 Cost and Performance Case Study. 
Phytoremediation at Twin Cities Army 
Ammunition Plant Minneapolis-St.Paul, 
Minnesota. Federal Remediation Technologies 
Roundtable (FRTR). 

http ://www. frtr.gov/costperf. htm. 

15.3 Ma LQ, Komar KM, Tu C, Zhang WH, Cai Y, 
Kennedy ED. A fern that hyperaccumulates 
arsenic. Nature 409:579. February 2001. 
http://www.ifas.ufl.edu/~qma/PUBLICATION/ 
Nature.pdf 

15.4 Federal Remediation Technologies Screening 
Matrix and Reference Guide Version 3.0. FRTR. 

http://www.frtr.gov/matrix2/top_page.html 

15.5 U.S. EPA. Introduction to Phytoremediation. 
National Risk Management Research 
Laboratories. Office of Research and 
Development. EPA 600-R-99-107. February 

2000. http://www.clu-in.org/download/remed/ 

introphyto.pdf 


Factors Affecting Phytoremediation Costs 

• Number of crops grown - A greater number 
of crops may decrease the time taken for 
contaminants to be remediated to specified 
goals, thereby decreasing costs (Ref. 15.2). 
However, the number of crops grown will be 
limited by the length of the growing season, the 
time needed for crops to reach maturity, the 
potential for multiple crops to deplete the soil 
of nutrients, climatic conditions, and other 
factors. 

• Factors affecting phytoremediation 
performance - Items in the “Factors Affecting 
Phytoremediation Performance” box will also 
affect costs. 


15.6 Zhang W, Cai Y, Tu C, Ma LQ. Speciation and 
Distribution of Arsenic in an Arsenic 
Hyperaccumulating Plant. Biogeochemistry of 
Environmentally Important Elements. Symposia 
Papers Presented Before the Division of 
Environmental Chemistry. American Chemical 
Society. San Diego, CA. April 1-5, 2001. 

15.7 SchnoorJL. Phytoremediation. Technology 
Evaluation Report. Prepared for Ground-Water 
Remediation Technologies Analysis Center 
(GWRTAC). 1997. 
http://www.gwrtac.org/html/ 

techeval. html#PH YT O 

15.8 U.S. EPA. Phytoremediation Resource Guide. 
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. 
EPA 542-B-99-003. June 1999. 
http://www.clu-in.org/download/remed/ 
phytoresguide.pdf 

15.9 Compton A, Foust RD, Salt DA, Ketterer ME. 
Arsenic Accumulation in Potomogeton 
i/linoiensis in Montezuma Well, Arizona. 
Biogeochemistry of Environmentally Important 
Elements. Symposia Papers Presented Before 
the Division of Environmental Chemistry. 
American Chemical Society. San Diego, CA. 
April 1-5, 2001. 

15.10 Redwine JC. Innovative Technologies for 
Remediation of Arsenic in Soil and 
Groundwater. Southern Company Services, Inc. 

15.11 Qian JH, Zayed A, Zhu YL, Yu M, Terry N. 
Phytoaccumulation of Trace Elements by 
Wetland Plants: III. Uptake and Accumulation 
of Ten Trace Elements by Twelve Plant Species. 
Journal of Environmental Quality. 1999. 

15.12 Lasat, M. The Use of Plants for the Removal of 
Toxic Metals from Contaminated Soil. 

American Association for the Advancement of 
Science. 


15-3 




15.13 Lasat, M. Phytoextraction of Toxic Metals: A 
review of Biological Mechanisms. J. of Environ. 
Qual. 31:109-120. 2002. 

15.14 Salt, D. E., M. et al. Phytoremediation: A Novel 
Strategy for the Removal of Toxic Metals from 
the Environment Using Plants. Biotechnol. 
13:468-474. 1995. 

15.15 Cunningham, S. D. The Phytoremediation of Soils 
Contaminated with Organic Pollutants: Problems 
and Promise. International Phytoremediation 
Conference. May 8-10. Arlington, VA. 1996. 

15.16 Dushenkov, S., D. et al.. Removal of Uranium 
from Water Using Terrestrial Plants. Environ, Sci. 
Technol. 31(12):3468-3474. 1997. 

15.17 Cunningham, S. D., and W. R. Berti, and J. W. 
Huang. Phytoremediation of Contaminated Soils. 
Trends Biotechnol. 13:393-397. 1995. 


15-4 


Table 15.1 

Arsenic Phytoremediation Treatment Performance Data for Arsenic 


Source 

15.7 

15.2 

15.9 

15.10 

15.3 

15.8 

15.11 

Remediating 

Flora 

Hybrid poplar 
(specific 
variety not 
identified) 

Com (specific 
variety not 

identified), 

white mustard 

(Sinapis alba) 

Potomogeton 

illinoiensis 

Moss verbena 

(V. tenuisecta) 

Saw palmetto 

(S. repens ) 

Brake fem 

(Pteris vittata ) 

Tamarisk 

(Tamar ix 

ramosissima ), 

Eucalyptus 

Water lettuce 

(Pistia 

stratiotes ) 

Bioconcentration 

Factor 


1 

1 

oc 

20 - 75 (leaves) 

60 - 320 (shoots) 

265 

s 

1 

l 

Final Arsenic 
Concentration 

Performance data 
not available due 
to death of 
remediating flora. 

1 

1 

4.59 mg/kg 
(shoots) 

8.87 mg/kg 
(roots) 

i 

l 

l 

I 

I 

I 

1 

1 

34 mg/kg 

(shoots) 

177 mg/kg (roots) 

Initial Arsenic 
Concentration 

1,000 mg/kg 

1 

l 

100 mg/L (Well 
water) 

650 

i 

i 

400 

1 

1 

l 

l 

Site Name or 
Location 

Whitewood Creek 
Superfund Site, SD 

Twin Cities Army 
Ammunition Plant, Site 
C and Site 129-3, 
Minneapolis-St. Paul, 
MN 

Montezuma Well, AZ 

I 

l 

FL 

East Palo Alto, CA 

l 

1 

Scale 

Full 

Pilot 

Pilot 

Bench 

Bench 

Bench 

Bench 

Waste or 
Media 

Deep soil 

Surface soil 

Groundwater 
(ex situ) 

Surface soil 

Surface soil 

Soil 

Soil 

Industry or Site 

Type 

Mining 

Munitions 

Manufacturing/S 

torage 

s 

l 

I 

Wood 

Preserving 

i 

I 

I 



















D -C 

■o 5 £ 

— 

CN 




<~n 



- 3 









- Z 










15-5 











































16.0 BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT FOR 
ARSENIC 


Summary 

Biological treatment designed to remove arsenic 
from soil, waste, and water is an emerging 
remediation technology. The information sources 
used for this report identified a limited number of 
projects treating arsenic biologically. Arsenic was 
reduced to below 0.050 mg/L in one pilot-scale 
application. This technology promotes 
precipitation/coprecipitation of arsenic in water or 
leaching of arsenic in soil and waste. The leachate 
from bioleaching requires additional treatment for 
arsenic prior to disposal. 


Technology Description and Principles 

Although biological treatments have usually been 
applied to the degradation of organic contaminants, 
some innovative techniques have applied biological 
remediation to the treatment of arsenic. This 
technology involves biological activity that promotes 
precipitation/coprecipitation of arsenic from water and 
leaching of arsenic in soil and waste. 

Biological precipitation/coprecipitation processesfor 
water create ambient conditions intended to cause 
arsenic to precipitate/coprecipitate or act directly on 
arsenic species to transform them into species that are 
more amenable to precipitation/coprecipitation. The 
microbes may be suspended in the water or attached to 
a submerged solid substrate. Iron or hydrogen sulfide 
may also be added (Ref. 16.2, 16.3, 16.4, 16.4). 


Technology Description: Biological treatment of 
arsenic is based on the theory that microorganisms 
that act directly on arsenic species or create ambient 
conditions that cause arsenic to precipitate/ 
coprecipitate from water and leach from soil and 
waste. 

Media Treated: 

• Soil 

• Waste 

• Water 

Microbes Used: 

• Sulfate-reducing bacteria 

• Arsenic-reducing bacteria 


One water treatment process depends upon biological 
activity to produce and deposit iron oxides within a 
filter media, which provides a large surface area over 
which the arsenic can contact the iron oxides. The 
aqueous solution is passed through the filter, where 
arsenic is removed from solution through 
coprecipitation or adsorption to the iron oxides. An 
arsenic sludge is continuously produced (Ref. 16.3). 


Model of a Biological Treatment System 


Influent 



Another process uses anaerobic sulfate-reducing 
bacteria and other direct arsenic-reducing bacteria to 
precipitate arsenic from solution as insoluble arsenic- 
sulfide complexes (Ref. 16.2). The water containing 
arsenic is typically pumped through a packed-bed 
column reactor, where precipitates accumulate until the 
column becomes saturated (Ref. 16.5). The arsenic is 
then stripped and the column is biologically regenerated 
(Ref. 16.2). Hydrogen sulfide has also been used in 
suspended reactors to biologically precipitate arsenic 
out of solution (Ref. 16.2, 16.4). These reactors require 
conventional solid/liquid separation techniques for 
removing precipitates. 

Removal of arsenic from soil biologically via 
“accelerated bioleaching” has also been tested on a 
bench scale. The microbes in this system produce 
nitric, sulfuric, and organic acids which are intended to 
mobilize and remove arsenic from ores and sediments 
(Ref. 16.4). This biological activity also produces 
surfactants, which can enhance metal leaching (Ref. 
16.4). 

Media and Contaminants Treated 

Biological treatment typically uses microorganisms to 
degrade organic contaminants in soil, sludge, solids 
groundwater, and wastewaters. Biological treatment 


16- 1 







has also been used to treat arsenic in water via 
precipitation/coprecipitation and in soil through 
leaching (Ref. 16.1, 16.3). 

Type, Number, and Scale of Identified Projects 
Treating Soil, Waste, and Water Containing Arsenic 

The data sources used for this report contained 
information on biological treatment of arsenic at full 
scale at one facility, at pilot scale at three facilities, and 
at bench scale for one project. Figure 16.1 shows the 
number of identified applications at each scale. An 
enhanced bioleaching system for treating soil 
containing arsenic has been tested at bench scale (Ref. 
16.4) (Table 16.1, Project 5). In addition, a biological 
treatment system using hydrogen sulfide has been used 
in a bioslurry reactor to treat arsenic at bench and pilot 
scales (Ref. 16.4) (Table 16.1, Project 4). 

Figure 16.1 

Scale of Identified Biological Treatment Projects for 

Arsenic 



Summary of Performance Data 

Table 16.1 lists the available performance data for three 
projects using biological treatment for arsenic 
contamination in water. Of the two projects that treated 
wastewaters containing arsenic, only one had both 
influent and effluent arsenic concentration data (Project 
1). The arsenic concentration was not reduced to below 
0.05 mg/L in this project. 

One project (Project 3) treated groundwater spiked with 
sodium arsenite. The groundwater had naturally- 
occurring iron at 8 - 12 mg/L (Ref. 16.3). The initial 
arsenic concentration ranged from 0.075 to 0.400 mg/L, 
and was reduced by treatment to less than 0.050 mg/L. 
No data were available for the one soil bioleaching 
project. 


Factors Affecting Biological Treatment 

Performance 

• pH - pH levels can inhibit microbial growth. 
For example, sulfate-reducing bacteria perform 
optimally in a pH range of 6.5 to 8.0 (Ref. 
16.5). 

• Contaminant concentration - High arsenic 
concentrations may be toxic to microorganisms 
used in biological treatment (Ref. 16.1). 

• Available nutrients - An adequate nutrient 
supply should be available to the microbes to 
enhance and stimulate growth. If the initial 
solution is nutrient deficient, nutrient addition 
may be necessary. 

• Temperature - Lower temperatures decrease 
biodegradation rates. Heating may be required 
to maintain biological activity (Ref. 16.1). 

• Iron concentration - For biologically- 
enhanced iron precipitation, iron must be 
present in the water to be treated. The optimal 
iron level depends primarily on the arsenic 
concentration. (Ref. 16.3). 


The case study at the end of this section further 
discusses a pilot-scale application of biological 
treatment to arsenic-contaminated groundwater. 
Information for this project is summarized in Table 
16.1, Project 3. 

Applicability, Advantages, and Potential Limitations 

A variety of arsenic-contaminated soil, waste, and water 
can be treated using biological processes. Biological 
treatment of arsenic may produce less sludge than 
conventional ferric arsenic precipitation (Ref. 16.2). A 
high concentration of arsenic could inhibit biological 
activity (Ref. 16.1, 16.2). 


Factors Affecting Biological Treatment Costs 

• Pretreatment requirements - Pretreatment 
may be required to encourage the growth of key 
microorganisms. Pretreatment can include pH 
adjustment and removal of contaminants that 
may inhibit microbial growth. 

• Nutrient addition - If nutrient addition is 
required, costs may increase. 

• Factors affecting biological treatment 
performance - Items in the “Factors Affecting 
Biological Treatment Performance” box will 
also affect costs. 


16-2 

















Summary of Cost Data 

The reported costs for biological treatment of arsenic- 

contaminated soil, waste, and water range from less 

than $0.50 to $2.00 per 1,000 gallons (Ref. 16.2, 16.4, 

cost year not provided). 

References 

16.1 Remediation Technologies Reference Guide and 
Screening Manual, Version 3.0. Federal 
Remediation Technologies Roundtable. 
http://www.frtr.gov/matrix2/top_page.html. 

16.2 Applied Biosciences. June 28, 2001. 
http://www.bioprocess.com 

16.3 Use of Biological Processes for Arsenic 
Removal. June 28, 2001. 
http://www.saur.co.uk/poster.html 

16.4 Center for Bioremediation at Weber State 
University. Arsenic Treatment Technologies. 
August 27, 2001. http://www.weber.edu/ 
Bioremediation/arsenic.htm 

16.5 Tenny, Ron and Jack Adams. Ferric Salts 
Reduce Arsenic in Mine Effluent by Combining 
Chemical and Biological Treatment. August 27, 
2001. http://www.esemag.eom/0101 /ferric.html 


Case Study: Sodium Arsenite Spiked 
Groundwater, Forest Row, Sussex, United 
Kingdom 

Groundwater with naturally-occurring iron between 
8 and 12 mg/L was extracted in Forest Row, 

Sussex, England and spiked with sodium arsenite. 
The arsenic concentration before treatment ranged 
from 0.075 to 0.400 mg/L in the untreated water. 
The spiked groundwater was passed through a pilot 
biological filtration unit, 3 m high with a 15 cm 
diameter and filled to 1 m with silica sand. The 
arsenic concentration was reduced to <0.04 mg/L 
(Ref. 16.3) (see Project 3, Table 16.1). 


16-3 




Table 16.1 

Biological Treatment Performance Data for Arsenic 


© 

o 

i- 

3 

© 

C/5 


<N 

vd 


vO 


rn 

vd 


vd 


■3- 

vd 


C/2 

© 

© 

© 

s** 

& 

"3 

© 

'3d 

© 


CQ 


© 


00 

c 


-a 

c 

3 

c 

_o 

-4—» 

o 

3 

33 

© 

C 2 


3 

C/3 


E 

,2 

M-i 


3 .3 

03 O 
3 
33 

>- D 

© 2; 


3 


«-1 

3 X> 3 

.2 OX) So 

3 .E 3 

•- O +. 
0-3 0 

•3 33 © 

© Si £ 

i- 33 

a. 


3 

'C 

o 

o 

3 

-O 


3 

* £ 
O .to 

<3 * 

3 - C 

M <5 

.2 3 

JO 3 
O X 2 

o OX) 
3 3 

E '© 

< 3 

33 
O 


2 3 

3 E 

O 3 

r/5 —‘ 


5 8 

P’S 


o 

3 

O 

•— 

o 

00 

3 


3 

3 

O 

3 


O 

*-* 

C/2 

>2 

C/2 


O 

o 


o. 


o 

s_ — 

o ,o 

-3 

£ >, c/2 
3 ’> 33 

.2 - 

-3 © 

3 cs 

-4—* — 

X) 

3 £ 

.2 o 

00 3 

-2 ^ 

_o 

5 


o 

3 

o 


c/i 

o 

o 

3 

33 

O 


O 

c 3 

° o 

3 £2 

o rt 

S o 
'5. 3 
■3 -2 

© o 

o. £ 

o ° 
2 w 
° 33 
3 


O 3 . 

■ — O 3 

3 60 2 
Woo 

££ J= 3 
3 2 W 
3 ^ rr o 

° -3 

_ 00 -o 

5 .E « 

3 2 3 
3 3 - 3 

3 M II 

aji 3 

^ E: 


E 

<D 

GO 

>> 

CO 


^3 

11 
o •- 
o 3 

IS oo 
c 


33 
O 3 
3 


C/2 

r2 

o 

3 


o« g 
£ 3 “5 

W " 1 C/2 


33 

O 

O 

3 

3 

-3 

3 

W 


C/2 

3 


O 

CO 

CO 


"O 

© W 

2 2 
© J© 
3 o 
O O 
00 o 
3 


C/2 

O 


E c/2 
o *s 

it o 

3 .S 

> 33 

O o 

3 CO 

© 33 

*- 3 

C 3 

_o 

■*—» 

CS 

o 


o 


« .2 * 
.53 e - 
a © 3 

xA s 
Ok.© 
O-^O 

*- < S 

— © 

u 


© 5 

© 3 
2 2 
< 3 

— © 

* £ 
e g 

•* o 

U- (j 


'So 


IT) 

o 

O 

V 


00 

g 

m 

cd 

V 


o 

3 f 

o 

© hJ 

I 60 

O E 

o 

o 


# © 

3 

*E 

O 

© 

V. 

V2 

3 

k. 

s- 

< 

*. 

C 

■— 

© 

.2 

© 


a 

*E 

© 

U 


00 

E 

m 


o 

o 

3t 

© -J 

I 00 
n £ 

o 


© g 
E ® 

3 3 

^ © 

£ J 

£ £ 


_© 

"3 

© 

C/D 


j 2 

£ 


_o 

’£ 


_o 

£ 


o 

3 

O 

CD 


■o 

© 


o 

—< 

cd 

o 

* 

CO 

03 


aj 

o 

c n 
03 

£ 


© 


3 

O 

C/2 


O 
3 

£ 

33 

3 © 3 

ill 

c/2 33 
O 

C/2 


„ ^ _ 
33 -o 3 

3 © 3 

O 

U. 

a 


© 

3 

£ 

33 

3 

3 

O 

c- 

a 


33 z 

3 3 

3 © 

C/2 £ 

o •- 
O w 

w C/2 


o © 

>. p- 

i H 
»2 1 

3 © 

33 * 

3 C/5 


*. 1- 

© © 
© £ 

o’ E 

> 3 

ft. z 


n 


m 


in 


mg/L = Milligram per liter 
— = Not available 


















Appendix A 


Literature Search Results 

This appendix does not appear in the printed version of 
Arsenic Treatment Technologies for Soil, Waste, and Water. This appendix 
available in the on-line version of this report at http://clu-in.org/arsenic. 











































Appendix B 


Superfund Sites with Arsenic as a Constituent of Concern 















Table B.l 

Superfund Sites with Arsenic as a Contaminant of Concern 


EPA 

REGION 

STATE 

SITE NAME 

EPA ID 

TECHNOLOGY 

APPLIED 

01 

CT 

LINEMASTER SWITCH CORP. 

CTD001153923 

— 

01 

CT 

GALLUP'S QUARRY 

CTD108960972 

— 

01 

CT 

LAUREL PARK, INC. 

CTD980521 165 

— 

01 

CT 

OLD SOUTHINGTON LANDFILL 

CTD980670806 

— 

01 

CT 

NEW LONDON SUBMARINE BASE 

CTD980906515 

— 

01 

CT 

CHESHIRE GROUND WATER 

CTD981067317 

— 

01 

MA 

OTIS AIR NATIONAL GUARD 

MA2570024487 

— 

01 

MA 

FORT DEVENS 

MA7210025154 

— 

01 

MA 

SILRESIM CHEMICAL CORP. 

MAD000192393 

— 

01 

MA 

W.R. GRACE & CO., INC. (ACTON 
PLANT) 

MAD001002252 

SOLIDIFICATION/ 

STABILIZATION 

01 

MA 

BAIRD & MCGUIRE 

MAD001041987 

PRECIPITATION/ 

COPRECIPITATION, 

ADSORPTION 

01 

MA 

CHARLES-GEORGE RECLAMATION 
TRUST LANDFILL 

MAD003809266 

— 

01 

MA 

IRON HORSE PARK 

MAD051787323 

~ 

01 

MA 

INDUSTRI-PLEX 

MAD076580950 

— 

01 

MA 

SALEM ACRES 

MAD980525240 

— 

01 

MA 

PSC RESOURCES 

MAD980731483 

SOLIDIFICATION/ 

STABILIZATION 

01 

MA 

GROVELAND WELLS 

MAD980732317 

— 

01 

MA 

HOCOMONCO POND 

MAD980732341 

— 

01 

MA 

NYANZA CHEMICAL WASTE DUMP 

MAD990685422 

— 

01 

ME 

BRUNSWICK NAVAL AIR STATION 

ME8170022018 

— 

01 

ME 

LORING AIR FORCE BASE 

ME9570024522 

— 

01 

ME 

UNION CHEMICAL CO., INC. 

MED042143883 

— 

01 

ME 

WINTHROP LANDFILL 

MED980504435 

PRECIPITATION/ 

COPRECIPITATION 

01 

ME 

SACO TANNERY WASTE PITS 

MED980520241 

— 

01 

NH 

PEASE AIR FORCE BASE 

NH7570024847 

— 

01 

NH 

FLETCHER'S PAINT WORKS & 
STORAGE 

NHD001079649 

— 

01 

NH 

NEW HAMPSHIRE PLATING CO. 

NHD001091453 

— 

01 

NH 

COAKLEY LANDFILL 

NHD064424153 

— 

01 

NH 

KEEFE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 

(KES) 

NHD092059112 


01 

NH 

SYLVESTER 

NHD099363541 

— 

01 

NH 

MOTTOLO PIG FARM 

NHD980503361 

— 

01 

NH 

DOVER MUNICIPAL LANDFILL 

NHD980520191 

— 

01 

NH 

AUBURN ROAD LANDFILL 

NHD980524086 

— 

01 

NH 

SAVAGE MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY 

NHD980671002 

— 

01 

NH 

TOWN GARAGE/RADIO BEACON 

NHD981063860 

— 

01 

NH 

TIBBETTS ROAD 

NHD989090469 

— 

01 

NH 

OTTATI & GOSS/KINGSTON STEEL 

DRUM 

NHD990717647 


01 

RI 

DAVISVILLE NAVAL CONSTRUCTION 

BATTALION CENTER 

RI6170022036 


01 

RI 

NEWPORT NAVAL EDUCATION & 

TRAINING CENTER 

RI6170085470 



B- 1 















































Table B.l 

Superfund Sites with Arsenic as a Contaminant of Concern (continued) 


EPA 

REGION 

STATE 

SITE NAME 

EPA ID 

TECHNOLOGY 

APPLIED 

01 

RI 

PETERSON/PURITAN, INC. 

RID055176283 

PRECIPITATION/ 

COPRECIPITATION 

01 

RI 

CENTRAL LANDFILL 

RID980520183 

— 

01 

RI 

DAVIS (GSR) LANDFILL 

RID980731459 

— 

01 

RI 

DAVIS LIQUID WASTE 

RID980523070 

— 

01 

VT 

TANSITOR ELECTRONICS, INC. 

VTD000509174 

— 

01 

VT 

BURGESS BROTHERS LANDFILL 

VTD003965415 

— 

01 

VT 

BFI SANITARY LANDFILL 
(ROCKINGHAM) 

VTD980520092 

— 

01 

VT 

PINE STREET CANAL 

VTD980523062 

— 

01 

VT 

PARKER SANITARY LANDFILL 

VTD981062441 

— 

01 

VT 

BENNINGTON MUNICIPAL SANITARY 
LANDFILL 

VTD981064223 

— 

02 

NJ 

NAVAL WEAPONS STATION EARLE 
(SITE A) 

NJ0170022172 

! 

02 

NJ 

PICATINNY ARSENAL (USARMY) 

NJ3210020704 

— 

02 

NJ 

NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING CENTER 

NJ7170023744 

— 

02 

NJ 

CHEMICAL CONTROL 

NJD000607481 

SOLIDIFICATION/ 

STABILIZATION 

02 

NJ 

DAYCO CORP./L.E CARPENTER CO. 

NJD002168748 

— 

02 

NJ 

AMERICAN CYANAMID CO. 

NJD002173276 

— 

02 

NJ 

HERCULES, INC. (GIBBSTOWN PLANT) 

NJD002349058 

— 

02 

NJ 

SHIELDALLOY CORP. 

NJD002365930 

— 

02 

NJ 

VINELAND CHEMICAL CO., INC. 

NJD002385664 

SOIL WASHING, SOIL 
FLUSHING, 
PRECIPITATION/ 
COPRECIPITATION 

02 

NJ 

CURCIO SCRAP METAL, INC. 

NJD011717584 

— 

02 

NJ 

SWOPE OIL & CHEMICAL CO. 

NJD041743220 

— 

02 

NJ 

FRIED INDUSTRIES 

NJD041828906 

— 

02 

NJ 

CHEMICAL LEAMAN TANK LINES, 

INC. 

NJD047321443 

— 

02 

NJ 

KIN-BUC LANDFILL 

NJD049860836 

— 

02 

NJ 

NL INDUSTRIES 

NJD061843249 

— 

02 

NJ 

GLOBAL SANITARY LANDFILL 

NJD063160667 

— 

02 

NJ 

SYNCON RESINS 

NJD064263817 

— 

02 

NJ 

RENORA, INC. 

NJD070415005 

— 

02 

NJ 

SCIENTIFIC CHEMICAL PROCESSING 

NJD070565403 

— 

02 

NJ 

ROEBLING STEEL CO. 

NJD073732257 

— 

02 

NJ 

BROOK INDUSTRIAL PARK 

NJD078251675 

— 

02 

NJ 

JIS LANDFILL 

NJD097400998 

— 

02 

NJ 

CHEMICAL INSECTICIDE CORP. 

NJD980484653 

— 

02 

NJ 

BURNT FLY BOG 

NJD980504997 

— 

02 

NJ 

KING OF PRUSSIA 

NJD980505341 

SOIL WASHING 

02 

NJ 

HELEN KRAMER LANDFILL 

NJD980505366 

— 

02 

NJ 

LIPARI LANDFILL 

NJD980505416 

— 

02 

NJ 

LONE PINE LANDFILL 

NJD980505424 

— 

02 

NJ 

PJP LANDFILL 

NJD980505648 

— 

02 

NJ 

SAYREVILLE LANDFILL 

NJD980505754 

— 

02 

NJ 

WOODLAND ROUTE 72 DUMP 

NJD980505879 

— 

02 

NJ 

WOODLAND ROUTE 532 DUMP 

NJD980505887 

— 


B - 2 

















































Table B.l 

Superfund Sites w ith Arsenic as a Contaminant of Concern (continued) 


EPA 

REGION 

STATE 

SITE NAME 

EPA ID 

TECHNOLOGY 

APPLIED 

02 

NJ 

CHEMSOL, INC. 

NJD980528889 

— 

02 

NJ 

ELLIS PROPERTY 

NJD980529085 

— 

02 

NJ 

FLORENCE LAND RECONTOURING, 
INC., LANDFILL 

NJD980529143 

— 

02 

NJ 

D'IMPERIO PROPERTY 

NJD980529416 

— 

02 

NJ 

RINGWOOD MINES/LANDFILL 

NJD980529739 

— 

02 

NJ 

SPENCE FARM 

NJD980532816 

— 

02 

NJ 

FRIEDMAN PROPERTY 

NJD980532832 

— 

02 

NJ 

IMPERIAL OIL CO., INC./CHAMPION 
CHEMICALS 

NJD980654099 

— 

02 

NJ 

DOVER MUNICIPAL WELL 4 

NJD980654131 

— 

02 

NJ 

ROCKY HILL MUNICIPAL WELL 

NJD980654156 

— 

02 

NJ 

MONTGOMERY TOWNSHIP HOUSING 
DEVELOPMENT 

NJD980654164 

— 

02 

NJ 

MYERS PROPERTY 

NJD980654198 

— 

02 

NJ 

ROCKAWAY TOWNSHIP WELLS 

NJD9806542I4 

— 

02 

NJ 

EWAN PROPERTY 

NJD980761365 

— 

02 

NJ 

DE REWAL CHEMICAL CO. 

NJD980761373 

— 

02 

NJ 

CINNAMISON TOWNSHIP (BLOCK 702) 
GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION 

NJD980785638 

— 

02 

NJ 

INDUSTRIAL LATEX CORP. 

NJD981178411 

— 

02 

NJ 

HIGGINS FARM 

NJD981490261 

ION EXCHANGE, 
PRECIPITATION/ 
COPRECIPITATION 

02 

NY 

PLATTSBURGH AIR FORCE BASE 

NY4571924774 

— 

02 

NY 

SYOSSET LANDFILL 

NYD000511360 

— 

02 

NY 

RAMAPO LANDFILL 

NYD000511493 

— 

02 

NY 

POLLUTION ABATEMENT SERVICES 

NYD000511659 

— 

02 

NY 

YORK OIL CO. 

NYD000511733 

— 

02 

NY 

FMC CORP. (DUBLIN ROAD 

LANDFILL) 

NYD000511857 

SOLIDIFICATION/ 

STABILIZATION 

02 

NY 

MATTIACE PETROCHEMICAL CO., 

INC. 

NYD000512459 


02 

NY 

NIAGARA COUNTY REFUSE 

NYD000514257 

— 

02 

NY 

LOVE CANAL 

NYD000606947 

— 

02 

NY 

CLAREMONT POLYCHEMICAL 

NYD002044584 

— 

02 

NY 

GENZALE PLATING CO. 

NYD002050110 

— 

02 

NY 

AMERICAN THERMOSTAT CO. 

NYD002066330 

— 

02 

NY 

ROBINTECH, INC./NATIONAL PIPE CO. 

NYD002232957 

— 

02 

NY 

HOOKER CHEMICAL & PLASTICS 

CORP./RUCO POLYMER CORP. 

NYD002920312 

SOLIDIFICATION/ 

STABILIZATION 

02 

NY 

CARROLL & DUBIES SEWAGE 

DISPOSAL 

NYD010968014 


02 

NY 

FACET ENTERPRISES, INC. 

NYD073675514 

— 

02 

NY 

SOLVENT SAVERS 

NYD980421176 

— 

02 

NY 

WARWICK LANDFILL 

NYD980506679 

— 

02 

NY 

HOOKER (102ND STREET) 

NYD980506810 

— 

02 

NY 

ISLIP MUNICIPAL SANITARY 

LANDFILL 

NYD980506901 


02 

NY 

JOHNSTOWN CITY LANDFILL 

NYD980506927 

-- 

02 

NY 

SIDNEY LANDFILL 

NYD980507677 

— 


B - 3 



















































Table B.l 

Superfund Sites with Arsenic as a Contaminant of Concern (continued) 


EPA 

REGION 

STATE 

SITE NAME 

EPA ID 

TECHNOLOGY ~ 
APPLIED 

02 

NY 

BATAVIA LANDFILL 

NYD980507693 

— 

02 

NY 

RICHARDSON HILL ROAD 
LANDFILL/POND 

NYD980507735 

— 

02 

NY 

VOLNEY MUNICIPAL LANDFILL 

NYD980509376 

— 

02 

NY 

CORTESE LANDFILL 

NYD980528475 

— 

02 

NY 

OLEAN WELL FIELD 

NYD980528657 

— 

02 

NY 

JONES SANITATION 

NYD980534556 

— 

02 

NY 

SARNEY FARM 

NYD980535165 

— 

02 

NY 

SEALAND RESTORATION, INC. 

NYD980535181 

— 

02 

NY 

SINCLAIR REFINERY 

NYD980535215 

— 

02 

NY 

APPLIED ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 

NYD980535652 

— 

02 

NY 

FULTON TERMINALS 

NYD980593099 

— 

02 

NY 

KENTUCKY AVENUE WELL FIELD 

NYD980650667 

— 

02 

NY 

PORT WASHINGTON LANDFILL 

NYD980654206 

— 

02 

NY 

NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORP. 
(SARATOGA SPRINGS PLANT) 

NYD980664361 

— 

02 

NY 

NORTH SEA MUNICIPAL LANDFILL 

NYD980762520 

— 

02 

NY 

BEC TRUCKING 

NYD980768675 

— 

02 

NY 

PREFERRED PLATING CORP. 

NYD980768774 

— 

02 

NY 

ENDICOTT VILLAGE WELL FIELD 

NYD980780746 

— 

02 

NY 

HERTEL LANDFILL 

NYD980780779 

— 

02 

NY 

CIRCUITRON CORP. 

NYD981184229 

— 

02 

NY 

ROWE INDUSTRIES GROUND WATER 
CONTAMINATION 

NYD981486954 

— 

02 

NY 

FOREST GLEN MOBILE HOME 
SUBDIVISION 

NYD981560923 

— 

02 

NY 

GCL TIE AND TREATING INC. 

NYD981566417 

— 

02 

NY 

ROSEN BROTHERS SCRAP 

YARD/DUMP 

NYD982272734 

— 

02 

NY 

PASLEY SOLVENTS & CHEMICALS, 

INC. 

NYD991292004 

— 

02 

PR 

JUNCOS LANDFILL 

PRD980512362 

— 

02 

PR 

FIBERS PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS 

PRD980763783 

— 

02 

VI 

TUTU WELLFIELD 

V1D982272569 

— 

03 

DE 

DOVER AIR FORCE BASE 

DE8570024010 

— 

03 

DE 

WILDCAT LANDFILL 

DED980704951 

— 

03 

DE 

HALBY CHEMICAL CO. 

DED980830954 

— 

03 

MD 

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND 
(EDGEWOOD AREA) 

MD2210020036 

— 

03 

MD 

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND 
(MICHAELSVILLE LANDFILL) 

MD3210021355 

— 

03 

MD 

PATUXENT RIVER NAVAL AIR 

STATION 

MD7170024536 

— 

03 

MD 

MID-ATLANTIC WOOD PRESERVERS, 
INC. 

MDD064882889 

— 

03 

MD 

WOODLAWN COUNTY LANDFILL 

MDD980504344 

— 

03 

MD 

LIMESTONE ROAD 

MDD980691588 

— 

03 

MD 

SAND, GRAVEL AND STONE 

MDD980705164 

~ 

03 

MD 

KANE & LOMBARD STREET DRUMS 

MDD980923783 

— 

03 

PA 

LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT (PDO 

AREA) 

PA2210090054 

-- 


B -4 
















































Table B.l 

Superfund Sites with Arsenic as a Contaminant of Concern (continued) 


EPA 

REGION 

STATE 

SITE NAME 

EPA ID 

TECHNOLOGY 

APPLIED 

03 

PA 

TOBYHANNA ARMY DEPOT 

PA5213820892 

— 

03 

PA 

NAVAL AIR DEVELOPMENT CENTER 

(8 WASTE AREAS) 

PA6170024545 

— 

03 

PA 

STRASBURG LANDFILL 

PAD00044I337 

— 

03 

PA 

HAVERTOWN PCP 

PAD002338010 

— 

03 

PA 

WHITMOYER LABORATORIES 

PAD0030050I4 

SOLIDIFICATION/ 

STABILIZATION, 

PRECIPITATION/ 

COPRECIPITATION 

03 

PA 

DRAKE CHEMICAL 

PAD003058047 

— 

03 

PA 

TONOLLI CORP. 

PAD073613663 

SOLIDIFICATION/ 
STABILIZATION, 
PERMEABLE REACTIVE 
BARRIER 

03 

PA 

NOVAK SANITARY LANDFILL 

PAD079160842 

— 

03 

PA 

OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL 
CORP./FIRESTONE Tire & RUBBER CO. 

PAD980229298 

— 

03 

PA 

MILL CREEK DUMP 

PAD98023I690 

— 

03 

PA 

LORD-SHOPE LANDFILL 

PAD980508931 

— 

03 

PA 

MIDDLETOWN AIR FIELD 

PAD980538763 

— 

03 

PA 

WADE (ABM) 

PAD980539407 

— 

03 

PA 

BRODHEAD CREEK 

PAD980691760 

— 

03 

PA 

OLD CITY OF YORK LANDFILL 

PAD980692420 

— 

03 

PA 

TAYLOR BOROUGH DUMP 

PAD980693907 

— 

03 

PA 

BELL LANDFILL 

PAD980705107 

— 

03 

PA 

MCADOO ASSOCIATES 

PAD980712616 

— 

03 

PA 

OSBORNE LANDFILL 

PAD980712673 

— 

03 

PA 

LINDANE DUMP 

PAD980712798 

— 

03 

PA 

WALSH LANDFILL 

PAD980829527 

— 

03 

PA 

YORK COUNTY SOLID WASTE AND 
REFUSE AUTHORITY LANDFILL 

PAD980830715 

— 

03 

PA 

RODALE MANUFACTURING CO., INC. 

PAD981033285 

— 

03 

VA 

MARINE CORPS COMBAT 
DEVELOPMENT COMMAND 

VA 1170024722 

— 

03 

VA 

DEFENSE GENERAL SUPPLY CENTER 
(DLA) 

VA3971520751 


03 

VA 

NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER - 

DAHLGREN 

VA7170024684 


03 

VA 

NAVAL WEAPONS STATION - 

YORKTOWN 

VA8170024170 


03 

VA 

SAUNDERS SUPPLY CO. 

VAD003117389 

PRECIPITATION/ 

COPRECIPITATION, 

ADSORPTION 

03 

VA 

GREENWOOD CHEMICAL CO. 

VAD003125374 

PRECIPITATION/ 

COPRECIPITATION, 

ADSORPTION 

03 

VA 

C & R BATTERY CO., INC. 

VAD049957913 

— 

03 

VA 

AVTEX FIBERS, INC. 

VAD070358684 

— 

03 

VA 

RENTOKIL, INC. (VIRGINIA WOOD 

PRESERVING DIVISION) 

VAD071040752 



B - 5 








































Table B.l 

Superfund Sites with Arsenic as a Contaminant of Concern (continued) 


"EPA 

REGION 

STATE 

SITE NAME 

EPA ID 

TECHNOLOGY 

APPLIED 

03 

VA 

FIRST PIEDMONT CORP. ROCK 
QUARRY (ROUTE 719) 

VAD980554984 

SOLIDIFICATION/ 

STABILIZATION 

03 

VA 

U.S. TITANIUM 

VAD980705404 

— 

03 

VA 

CHISMAN CREEK 

VAD980712913 

— 

03 

VA 

RHINEHART TIRE FIRE DUMP 

VAD980831796 

— 

03 

VA 

ATLANTIC WOOD INDUSTRIES, INC. 

VAD990710410 

— 

03 

WV 

ALLEGANY BALLISTICS 

LABORATORY(USNAVY) 

WV0170023691 

! 

03 

wv 

ORDNANCE WORKS DISPOSAL AREAS 

WVD000850404 

— 

04 

AL 

ALABAMA ARMY AMMUNITION 

PLANT 

AL6210020008 

— 

04 

AL 

CIBA-GEIGY CORP. (MCINTOSH 

PLANT) 

ALD001221902 

— 

04 

AL 

T.H. AGRICULTURE & NUTRITION CO. 
(MONTGOMERY PLANT) 

ALD007454085 

— 

04 

AL 

OLIN CORP. (MCINTOSH PLANT) 

ALD008188708 

— 

04 

AL 

INTERSTATE LEAD CO. (ILCO) 

ALD041906173 

— 

04 

AL 

REDWING CARRIERS, INC. 

(SARALAND) 

ALD980844385 

— 

04 

FL 

CECIL FIELD NAVAL AIR STATION 

FL5170022474 

— 

04 

FL 

JACKSONVILLE NAVAL AIR STATION 

FL6170024412 

SOLIDIFICATION/ 

STABILIZATION 

04 

FL 

HOMESTEAD AIR FORCE BASE 

FL7570024037 

SOLIDIFICATION/ 

STABILIZATION 

04 

FL 

PENSACOLA NAVAL AIR STATION 

FL9170024567 

— 

04 

FL 

REEVES SOUTHEASTERN 
GALVANIZING CORP. 

FLD000824896 

— 

04 

FL 

PEAK OIL CO./BAY DRUM CO. 

FLD004091807 

— 

04 

FL 

STAUFFER CHEMICAL CO (TAMPA) 

FLD004092532 

SOLIDIFICATION/ 

STABILIZATION 

04 

FL 

AMERICAN CREOSOTE WORKS, INC. 
(PENSACOLA PLANT) 

FLD008161994 

— 

04 

FL 

STAUFFER CHEMICAL CO. (TARPON 
SPRINGS) 

FLD010596013 

— 

04 

FL 

ANACONDA ALUMINUM CO./MILGO 
ELECTRONICS CORP. 

FLD020536538 

— 

04 

FL 

PEPPER STEEL & ALLOYS, INC. 

FLD032544587 

— 

04 

FL 

SHERWOOD MEDICAL INDUSTRIES 

FLD043861392 

— 

04 

FL 

ZELLWOOD GROUND WATER 
CONTAMINATION 

FLD049985302 

— 

04 

FL 

BMI-TEXTRON 

FLD052172954 

-- 

04 

FL 

HELENA CHEMICAL CO. (TAMPA 

PLANT) 

FLD053502696 

— 

04 

FL 

SCHUYLKILL METALS CORP. 

FLD062794003 

— 

04 

FL 

MIAMI DRUM SERVICES 

FLD076027820 

— 

04 

FL 

MUNISPORT LANDFILL 

FLD084535442 

— 

04 

FL 

AGRICO CHEMICAL CO. 

FLD980221857 

SOLIDIFICATION/ 

STABILIZATION 

04 

FL 

PICKETTVILLE ROAD LANDFILL 

FLD980556351 

— 


B -6 









































Table B.l 

Superfund Sites with Arsenic as a Contaminant of Concern (continued) 


EPA 

REGION 

STATE 

SITE NAME 

EPA ID 

" TECHNOLOGY 
APPLIED 

04 

FL 

DAVIE LANDFILL 

FLD980602288 

SOLIDIFICATION/ 

STABILIZATION 

04 

FL 

NORTHWEST 58TH STREET LANDFILL 

FLD980602643 

— 

04 

FL 

WHITEHOUSE OIL PITS 

FLD980602767 

— 

04 

FL 

SAPP BATTERY SALVAGE 

FLD980602882 

— 

04 

FL 

CABOT/KOPPERS 

FLD980709356 

SOLIDIFICATION/ 

STABILIZATION 

04 

FL 

KASSAUF-KIMERLING BATTERY 
DISPOSAL 

FLD980727820 

-- 

04 

FL 

SIXTY-SECOND STREET DUMP 

FLD980728877 

— 

04 

FL 

ANODYNE, INC. 

FLD981014368 

— 

04 

FL 

WINGATE ROAD MUNICIPAL 
INCINERATOR DUMP 

FLD981021470 

-- 

04 

GA 

ROBINS AIR FORCE BASE (LANDFILL 
#4/SLUDGE LAGOON) 

GA 1570024330 

— 

04 

GA 

MONSANTO CORP. (AUGUSTA PLANT) 

GAD001700699 

— 

04 

GA 

WOOLFOLK CHEMICAL WORKS, INC. 

GAD003269578 

— 

04 

GA 

T.H. AGRICULTURE & NUTRITION CO. 
(ALBANY PLANT) 

GAD042101261 

— 

05 

GA 

NATIONAL SMELTING & REFINING 

CO. INC. 

GAD057302002 

PYROMETALLURGICAL 

RECOVERY 

04 

GA 

CEDARTOWN INDUSTRIES, INC. 

GAD095840674 

— 

04 

GA 

CEDARTOWN MUNICIPAL LANDFILL 

GAD980495402 

— 

04 

GA 

HERCULES 009 LANDFILL 

GAD980556906 

— 

04 

KY 

PADUCAH GASEOUS DIFFUSION 

PLANT (USDOE) 

KY8890008982 

— 

04 

KY 

NATIONAL SOUTHWIRE ALUMINUM 
CO. 

KYD049062375 

— 

04 

KY 

BRANTLEY LANDFILL 

KYD980501019 

— 

04 

KY 

GREEN RIVER DISPOSAL, INC. 

KYD980501076 

— 

04 

KY 

HOWE VALLEY LANDFILL 

KYD980501191 

— 

04 

KY 

LEE'S LANE LANDFILL 

KYD980557052 

— 

04 

KY 

DISTLER BRICKYARD 

KYD980602155 

— 

04 

KY 

MAXEY FLATS NUCLEAR DISPOSAL 

KYD980729107 

— 

04 

KY 

FORT HARTFORD COAL CO. STONE 

QUARRY 

KYD980844625 


04 

KY 

NEWPORT DUMP 

KYD985066380 

— 

04 

MS 

NEWSOM BROTHERS/OLD 

REICHHOLD CHEMICALS, INC. 

MSD980840045 


04 

NC 

CAMP LEJEUNE MILITARY RES. 

(USNAVY) 

NC6170022580 


04 

NC 

CAPE FEAR WOOD PRESERVING 

NCD003188828 

— 

04 

NC 

FCX, INC. (STATESVILLE PLANT) 

NCD095458527 

-- 

04 

NC 

NORTH CAROLINA STATE 

UNIVERSITY (LOT 86, FARM UNIT #1) 

NCD980557656 


04 

NC 

JADCO-HUGHES FACILITY 

NCD980729602 

— 

04 

NC 

CHARLES MACON LAGOON AND 

DRUM STORAGE 

NCD980840409 


04 

NC 

ABERDEEN PESTICIDE DUMPS 

NCD980843346 

— 


B -7 














































Table B.l 

Superfund Sites with Arsenic as a Contaminant of Concern (continued) 


EPA 

REGION 

STATE 

SITE NAME 

EPA ID 

TECHNOLOGY 

APPLIED 

04 

NC 

NATIONAL STARCH & CHEMICAL 
CORP. 

NCD991278953 

— 

04 

SC 

SAVANNAH RIVER SITE (USDOE) 

SC 1890008989 

— 

04 

SC 

BEAUNIT CORP. (CIRCULAR KNIT & 
DYEING PLANT) 

SCD000447268 

— 

04 

SC 

PARA-CHEM SOUTHERN, INC. 

SCD002601656 

— 

04 

SC 

SANGAMO WESTON, INC./TWELVE- 
MILE CREEK/LAKE HARTWELL 

PCB CONTAMINATION 

SCD003354412 


04 

SC 

SHURON INC. 

SCD003357589 

— 

04 

SC 

PALMETTO WOOD PRESERVING 

SCD003362217 

SOLIDIFICATION/ 

STABILIZATION 

04 

sc 

KOPPERS CO., INC. (CHARLESTON 
PLANT) 

SCD980310239 

— 

04 

sc 

LEXINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL 

AREA 

SCD980558043 

— 

04 

sc 

SCRDI DIXIANA 

SCD980711394 

— 

04 

sc 

GOLDEN STRIP SEPTIC TANK SERVICE 

SCD980799456 

— 

04 

sc 

ELMORE WASTE DISPOSAL 

SCD980839542 

— 

04 

TN 

MILAN ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT 

TN0210020582 

— 

04 

TN 

OAK RIDGE RESERVATION (USDOE) 

TNI 890090003 

— 

04 

TN 

MEMPHIS DEFENSE DEPOT (DLA) 

TN4210020570 

— 

04 

TN 

AMERICAN CREOSOTE WORKS, INC. 
(JACKSON PLANT) 

TND007018799 

— 

04 

TN 

ROSS METALS INC. 

TND096070396 

SOLIDIFICATION/ 

STABILIZATION 

04 

TN 

ARLINGTON BLENDING & 

PACKAGING 

TND980468557 

— 

04 

TN 

NORTH HOLLYWOOD DUMP 

TND980558894 

— 

04 

TN 

GALLAWAY PITS 

TND980728992 

— 

04 

TN 

WRIGLEY CHARCOAL PLANT 

TND980844781 

— 

05 

IL 

PARSONS CASKET HARDWARE CO. 

ILD005252432 

— 

05 

IL 

JOHNS-MANVILLE CORP. 

ILD005443544 

— 

05 

IL 

OUTBOARD MARINE WAUKEGAN 
COKE PLANT 

ILD000802827 

SOLIDIFICATION/ 

STABILIZATION 

05 

IL 

BYRON SALVAGE YARD 

ILD010236230 

— 

05 

IL 

WAUCONDA SAND & GRAVEL 

ILD047019732 

— 

05 

IL 

ACME SOLVENT RECLAIMING, INC. 
(MORRISTOWN PLANT) 

ILD053219259 

SOLIDIFICATION/ 

STABILIZATION 

05 

IL 

YEOMAN CREEK LANDFILL 

ILD980500102 

— 

05 

IL 

H.O.D. LANDFILL 

ILD980605836 

— 

05 

IL 

WOODSTOCK MUNICIPAL LANDFILL 

ILD980605943 

— 

05 

IL 

PAGEL'S PIT 

ILD980606685 

— 

05 

IL 

ADAMS COUNTY QUINCY LANDFILLS 
2&3 

ILD980607055 

— 

05 

IN 

REILLY TAR & CHEMICAL CORP. 
(INDIANAPOLIS PLANT) 

IND000807107 

— 

05 

IN 

CONTINENTAL STEEL CORP. 

IND001213503 

— 

05 

IN 

AMERICAN CHEMICAL SERVICE, INC. 

IND016360265 

— 

05 

IN 

WAYNE WASTE OIL 

IND048989479 

— 


B - 8 













































Table B.l 

Superfund Sites with Arsenic as a Contaminant of Concern (continued) 


T1PA 

REGION 

STATE 

SITE NAME 

EPAID 

TECHNOLOGY 

APPLIED 

05 

IN 

NORTHSIDE SANITARY LANDFILL, 

INC 

IND050530872 

— 

05 

IN 

LAKELAND DISPOSAL SERVICE, INC. 

IND064703200 

— 

05 

IN 

LAKE SANDY JO (M&M LANDFILL) 

IND980500524 

— 

05 

IN 

WASTE, INC., LANDFILL 

IND980504005 

— 

05 

IN 

DOUGLASS ROAD/UNIROYAL, INC., 
LANDFILL 

1ND980607881 

— 

05 

IN 

MIDCO I 

IND980615421 

— 

05 

IN 

FORT WAYNE REDUCTION DUMP 

IND980679542 

— 

05 

IN 

MIDCO II 

IND980679559 

— 

05 

IN 

MAIN STREET WELL FIELD 

IND980794358 

— 

05 

IN 

MARION (BRAGG) DUMP 

IND980794366 

— 

05 

IN 

TIPPECANOE SANITARY LANDFILL, 
INC. 

IND980997639 

— 

05 

IN 

WHITEFORD SALES & SERVICE 
INC./NATIONALEASE 

IND980999791 

— 

05 

MI 

KENTWOOD LANDFILL 

MID000260281 

— 

05 

MI 

BERLIN & FARRO 

MID000605717 

— 

05 

MI 

MICHIGAN DISPOSAL SERVICE (CORK 
STREET LANDFILL) 

MID000775957 

— 

05 

MI 

ANDERSON DEVELOPMENT CO. 

MID002931228 

— 

05 

MI 

ELECTROVOICE 

MID005068143 

— 

05 

MI 

BENDIX CORP./ALLIED AUTOMOTIVE 

MID005107222 

— 

05 

MI 

NORTH BRONSON INDUSTRIAL AREA 

MID005480900 

— 

05 

MI 

PETOSKEY MUNICIPAL WELL FIELD 

MID006013049 

— 

05 

MI 

ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORP. 
(ALLEGAN PLANT) 

MID006028062 

— 

05 

MI 

PEERLESS PLATING CO. 

MID006031348 

— 

05 

MI 

ADAM'S PLATING 

MID006522791 

— 

05 

MI 

H. BROWN CO., INC. 

MID017075136 

— 

05 

MI 

THERMO-CHEM, INC. 

MID044567162 

— 

05 

MI 

OTT/STORY/CORDOVA CHEMICAL CO. 

MID060174240 

— 

05 

MI 

BUTTERWORTH #2 LANDFILL 

MID062222997 

— 

05 

MI 

SOUTH MACOMB DISPOSAL 

AUTHORITY (LANDFILLS #9 AND #9A) 

MID069826170 


05 

MI 

CARTER INDUSTRIALS, INC. 

MID980274179 

— 

05 

MI 

FOREST WASTE PRODUCTS 

MID980410740 

— 

05 

MI 

G&H LANDFILL 

MID980410823 

— 

05 

MI 

PARSONS CHEMICAL WORKS, INC. 

MID980476907 

VITRIFICATION 

05 

MI 

CHEM CENTRAL 

MID980477079 

— 

05 

MI 

ROSE TOWNSHIP DUMP 

MID980499842 

— 

05 

MI 

SPRINGFIELD TOWNSHIP DUMP 

MID980499966 

SOLIDIFICATION/ 

STABILIZATION 

05 

MI 

ALBION-SHERIDAN TOWNSHIP 

LANDFILL 

MID980504450 


05 

MI 

METAMORA LANDFILL 

MID980506562 

— 

05 

MI 

FOLKERTSMA REFUSE 

MID980609366 

— 

05 

MI 

J & L LANDFILL 

MID980609440 

— 

05 

MI 

CANNELTON INDUSTRIES, INC. 

MID980678627 

— 

05 

MI 

WASH KING LAUNDRY 

MID980701247 

— 


B - 9 



















































Table B.l 

Superfund Sites with Arsenic as a Contaminant of Concern (continued) 


EPA 

REGION 

STATE 

SITE NAME 

EPA ID 

TECHNOLOGY 

APPLIED 

05 

Ml 

MOTOR WHEEL, INC. 

MID980702989 

— 

05 

MI 

VERONA WELL FIELD 

MID980793806 

— 

05 

MI 

AUTO ION CHEMICALS, INC. 

MID980794382 

SOLIDIFICATION/ 

STABILIZATION 

05 

MI 

MASON COUNTY LANDFILL 

MID980794465 

— 

05 

MI 

CEMETERY DUMP 

MID980794663 

— 

05 

MI 

TORCH LAKE 

MID980901946 

— 

05 

MI 

LOWER ECORSE CREEK DUMP 

MID985574227 

— 

05 

MI 

ORGANIC CHEMICALS, INC. 

MID990858003 

— 

05 

MN 

NEW BRIGHTON/ARDEN HILLS/TCAAP 
(USARMY) 

MN7213820908 

PHYTOREMEDIATION 

05 

MN 

TWIN CITIES AIR FORCE RESERVE 
BASE (SMALL ARMS RANGE 
LANDFILL) 

MN8570024275 


05 

MN 

PINE BEND SANITARY LANDFILL 

MND000245795 

— 

05 

MN 

MACGILLIS & GIBBS CO./BELL 
LUMBER & POLE CO. 

MND006192694 

SOLIDIFICATION/ 

STABILIZATION 

05 

MN 

WINDOM DUMP 

MND980034516 

— 

05 

MN 

PERHAM ARSENIC SITE 

MND980609572 

— 

05 

MN 

SOUTH ANDOVER SITE 

MND980609614 

— 

05 

MN 

MORRIS ARSENIC DUMP 

MND980792287 

— 

05 

MN 

OAK GROVE SANITARY LANDFILL 

MND980904056 

— 

05 

MN 

WAITE PARK WELLS 

MND981002249 

— 

05 

MN 

LAGRAND SANITARY LANDFILL 

MND981090483 

— 

05 

MN 

DAKHUE SANITARY LANDFILL 

MND981 191570 

— 

05 

OH 

FERNALD ENVIRONMENTAL 
MANAGEMENT PROJECT (FORMERLY 
FEED MATERIALS PRODUCTION 
CENTER (USDOE)) 

OH6890008976 

SOLIDIFICATION/ 

STABILIZATION 

05 

OH 

WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE 

BASE 

OH7571724312 

— 

05 

OH 

POWELL ROAD LANDFILL 

OHD000382663 

— 

05 

OH 

ORMET CORP. 

OHD004379970 

VITRIFICATION, SOIL 
FLUSHING 

05 

OH 

ARCANUM IRON & METAL 

OHD017506171 

— 

05 

OH 

UNITED SCRAP LEAD CO., INC. 

OHD018392928 

— 

05 

OH 

ALLIED CHEMICAL & IRONTON COKE 

OHD043730217 

— 

05 

OH 

ALSCO ANACONDA 

OHD057243610 

— 

05 

OH 

LASKIN/POPLAR OIL CO. 

OH D061722211 

— 

05 

OH 

SKINNER LANDFILL 

OHD063963714 

— 

05 

OH 

SOUTH POINT PLANT 

OHD071650592 

— 

05 

OH 

CHEM-DYNE 

OHD074727793 

— 

05 

OH 

PRISTINE, INC. 

OHD076773712 

— 

05 

OH 

SANITARY LANDFILL CO. 

(INDUSTRIAL WASTE DISPOSAL CO., 
INC.) 

OHD093895787 


05 

OH 

BUCKEYE RECLAMATION 

OHD980509657 

— 

05 

OH 

E.H. SCHILLING LANDFILL 

OHD980509947 

SOLIDIFICATION/ 

STABILIZATION 

05 

OH 

OLD MILL 

OHD980510200 

— 


B - 10 













































Table B.l 

Superfund Sites with Arsenic as a Contaminant of Concern (continued) 


EPA 

REGION 

STATE 

SITE NAME 

EPA ID 

TECHNOLOGY 

APPLIED 

05 

OH 

SUMMIT NATIONAL 

OHD980609994 

— 

05 

OH 

FIELDS BROOK 

OHD980614572 

— 

05 

OH 

ZANESVILLE WELL FIELD 

OHD980794598 

-- 

05 

OH 

VAN DALE JUNKYARD 

OHD980794606 

— 

05 

OH 

FULTZ LANDFILL 

OHD980794630 

— 

05 

WI 

JANESVILLE ASH BEDS 

WID000712950 

-- 

05 

WI 

KOHLER CO. LANDFILL 

WID006073225 

— 

05 

WI 

OCONOMOWOC ELECTROPLATING 

CO., INC. 

WID006100275 

— 

05 

WI 

PENTA WOOD PRODUCTS 

WID006176945 

— 

05 

WI 

NATIONAL PRESTO INDUSTRIES, INC. 

WID006196174 

— 

05 

WI 

LEMBERGER TRANSPORT & 
RECYCLING 

WID056247208 

— 

05 

WI 

MADISON METROPOLITAN 

SEWERAGE DISTRICT LAGOONS 

WID078934403 

— 

05 

WI 

N.W. MAUTHE CO., INC. 

WID083290981 

— 

05 

WI 

HUNTS DISPOSAL LANDFILL 

WID980511919 

— 

05 

WI 

HAGEN FARM 

WID980610059 

— 

05 

WI 

SAUK COUNTY LANDFILL 

WID980610141 

— 

05 

WI 

ALGOMA MUNICIPAL LANDFILL 

WID980610380 

— 

05 

WI 

WHEELER PIT 

WID980610620 

— 

05 

WI 

CITY DISPOSAL CORP. LANDFILL 

WID980610646 

— 

05 

WI 

JANESVILLE OLD LANDFILL 

WID980614044 

— 

05 

WI 

MASTER DISPOSAL SERVICE 

LANDFILL 

WID980820070 

— 

05 

WI 

ONALASKA MUNICIPAL LANDFILL 

WID980821656 

— 

05 

WI 

LEMBERGER LANDFILL, INC. 

WID980901243 

— 

05 

WI 

SPICKLER LANDFILL 

WID980902969 

— 

05 

WI 

BETTER BRITE PLATING CO. CHROME 
AND ZINC SHOPS 

WIT560010118 


06 

AR 

MID-SOUTH WOOD PRODUCTS 

ARD092916188 

ADSORPTION, 

SOLIDIFICATION/ 

STABILIZATION 

06 

AR 

CECIL LINDSEY 

ARD980496186 

— 

06 

AR 

INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTROL 

ARD980496368 

— 

06 

AR 

SOUTH 8TH STREET LANDFILL 

ARD980496723 

— 

06 

AR 

MONROE AUTO EQUIPMENT CO. 

(PARAGOULDPIT) 

ARD980864110 


06 

LA 

SOUTHERN SHIPBUILDING 

LAD008149015 

— 

06 

LA 

CLEVE REBER 

LAD980501456 

SOLIDIFICATION/ 

STABILIZATION 

06 

LA 

PAB OIL & CHEMICAL SERVICE, INC. 

LAD980749139 

SOLIDIFICATION/ 

STABILIZATION 

06 

LA 

GULF COAST VACUUM SERVICES 

LAD980750137 

SOLIDIFICATION/ 

STABILIZATION 

06 

LA 

D.L. MUD, INC. 

LAD981058019 

— 

06 

LA 

LINCOLN CREOSOTE 

LAD981060429 

— 

06 

NM 

UNITED NUCLEAR CORP. 

NMD030443303 

-- 

06 

NM 

CAL WEST METALS (USSBA) 

NMD097960272 


06 

NM 

SOUTH VALLEY 

NMD980745558 

— 


B- 11 





















































Table B.l 

Superfund Sites with Arsenic as a Contaminant of Concern (continued) 


..EPA 

REGION 

STATE 

SITE NAME 

EPA ID 

TECHNOLOGY 

APPLIED 

06 

NM 

CIMARRON MINING CORP. 

NMD980749378 

— 

06 

NM 

CLEVELAND MILL 

NMD981155930 

— 

06 

OK 

NATIONAL ZINC CORP. 

OKD000829440 

— 

06 

OK 

DOUBLE EAGLE REFINERY CO. 

OKD007188717 

— 

06 

OK 

OKLAHOMA REFINING CO. 

OKD091598870 

SOLIDIFICATION/ 

STABILIZATION 

06 

OK 

MOSLEY ROAD SANITARY LANDFILL 

OKD980620868 

— 

06 

OK 

TENTH STREET DUMP/JUNKYARD 

OKD980620967 

— 

06 

OK 

FOURTH STREET ABANDONED 
REFINERY 

OKD980696470 

— 

06 

OK 

SAND SPRINGS PETROCHEMICAL 
COMPLEX 

OKD980748446 

— 

06 

TX 

LONGHORN ARMY AMMUNITION 
PLANT 

TX6213820529 

— 

06 

TX 

TEX-TIN 

TXD062113329 

PRECIPITATION/ 

COPRECIPITATION 

06 

TX 

SHERIDAN DISPOSAL SERVICES 

TXD062132147 

— 

06 

TX 

RSR CORPORATION 

TXD079348397 

— 

06 

TX 

BIO-ECOLOGY SYSTEMS, INC. 

TXD980340889 

SOLIDIFICATION/ 

STABILIZATION 

06 

TX 

FRENCH, LTD. 

TXD980514814 

SOLIDIFICATION/ 

STABILIZATION 

06 

TX 

HIGHLANDS ACID PIT 

TXD980514996 

— 

06 

TX 

KOPPERS CO., INC. (TEXARKANA 
PLANT) 

TXD980623904 

— 

06 

TX 

MOTCO, INC. 

TXD980629851 

— 

06 

TX 

SOUTH CAVALCADE STREET 

TXD980810386 

— 

06 

TX 

BAILEY WASTE DISPOSAL 

TXD980864649 

— 

06 

TX 

CRYSTAL CITY AIRPORT 

TXD980864763 

— 

06 

TX 

NORTH CAVALCADE STREET 

TXD980873343 

ADSORPTION 

06 

TX 

CRYSTAL CHEMICAL CO. 

TXD990707010 

— 

07 

IA 

IOWA ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT 

IA7213820445 

— 

07 

IA 

LAWRENCE TODTZ FARM 

IAD000606038 

— 

07 

IA 

LEHIGH PORTLAND CEMENT CO. 

IAD005288634 

— 

07 

IA 

JOHN DEERE (OTTUMWA WORKS 
LANDFILLS) 

IAD005291182 

— 

07 

IA 

WHITE FARM EQUIPMENT CO. DUMP 

IAD065210734 

— 

07 

IA 

MIDWEST MANUFACTURING/NORTH 
FARM 

IAD069625655 

— 

07 

IA 

MID-AMERICA TANNING CO. 

IAD085824688 

— 

07 

IA 

VOGEL PAINT & WAX CO. 

IAD980630487 

— 

07 

IA 

SHAW AVENUE DUMP 

IAD980630560 

SOLIDIFICATION/ 

STABILIZATION 

07 

IA 

RED OAK CITY LANDFILL 

IAD980632509 

— 

07 

IA 

E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS & CO., 

INC. (COUNTY ROAD X23) 

IAD980685804 

— 

07 

IA 

NORTHWESTERN STATES PORTLAND 

CEMENT CO. 

IAD980852461 

-- 

07 

IA 

FAIRFIELD COAL GASIFICATION 

PLANT 

IAD981124167 

— 


B - 12 












































Table B.l 

Superfund Sites with Arsenic as a Contaminant of Concern (continued) 


EPA 

REGION 

STATE 

SITE NAME 

EPA ID 

-TECHNOLOGY 

APPLIED 

07 

IA 

MCGRAW EDISON SITE 

IAD981711989 

— 

07 

KS 

FORT RILEY 

KS6214020756 

— 

07 

KS 

PESTER REFINERY CO. 

KSD000829846 

— 

07 

MO 

WELDON SPRING 

QUARRY/PLANT/PITS (USDOE/ARMY) 

M03210090004 

— 

07 

MO 

CONSERVATION CHEMICAL CO. 

MOD000829705 

— 

07 

MO 

KEM-PEST LABORATORIES 

MOD980631113 

— 

07 

MO 

ST. LOUIS AIRPORT/HAZELWOOD 
INTERIM STORAGE/FUTURA 

COATINGS CO. 

MOD980633176 


07 

MO 

BEE CEE MANUFACTURING CO. 

MOD980860522 

-- 

07 

NE 

CORNHUSKER ARMY AMMUNITION 
PLANT 

NE2213820234 

— 

07 

NE 

HASTINGS GROUND WATER 
CONTAMINATION 

NED980862668 

— 

07 

NE 

10TH STREET SITE 

NED981713837 

— 

08 

CO 

ROCKY MOUNTAIN ARSENAL 
(USARMY) 

C05210020769 

SOLIDIFICATION/ 

STABILIZATION 

08 

CO 

BRODERICK WOOD PRODUCTS 

COD000110254 

SOLIDIFICATION/ 

STABILIZATION 

08 

CO 

MARTIN MARIETTA (DENVER 
AEROSPACE) 

COD001704790 

— 

08 

CO 

ASARCO, INC. (GLOBE PLANT) 

COD007063530 

— 

08 

CO 

EAGLE MINE 

COD081961518 

— 

08 

CO 

LOWRY LANDFILL 

COD980499248 

— 

08 

CO 

WOODBURY CHEMICAL CO. 

COD980667075 

— 

08 

CO 

DENVER RADIUM SITE 

COD980716955 

— 

08 

CO 

CENTRAL CITY, CLEAR CREEK 

COD980717557 

— 

08 

CO 

CALIFORNIA GULCH 

COD980717938 

— 

08 

CO 

SAND CREEK INDUSTRIAL 

COD980717953 

— 

08 

CO 

SMELTERTOWN SITE 

COD983769738 

— 

08 

CO 

SUMMITVILLE MINE 

COD983778432 

— 

08 

MT 

EAST HELENA SITE 

MTD006230346 

— 

08 

MT 

MONTANA POLE AND TREATING 

MTD006230635 

— 

08 

MT 

ANACONDA CO. SMELTER 

MTD093291656 

SOLIDIFICATION/ 

STABILIZATION 

08 

MT 

LIBBY GROUND WATER 
CONTAMINATION 

MTD980502736 


08 

MT 

SILVER BOW CREEK/BUTTE AREA 

MTD980502777 

PRECIPITATION/ 

COPRECIPITATION 

08 

MT 

MILLTOWN RESERVOIR SEDIMENTS 

MTD980717565 

— 

08 

ND 

ARSENIC TRIOXIDE SITE 

NDD980716963 

— 

08 

ND 

MINOT LANDFILL 

NDD980959548 

— 

08 

SD 

ELLSWORTH AIR FORCE BASE 

SD2571924644 

— 

08 

SD 

WILLIAMS PIPE LINE CO. DISPOSAL 

PIT 

SDD000823559 


08 

SD 

WHITEWOOD CREEK 

SDD980717136 

— 

08 

UT 

JACOBS SMELTER 

UT0002391472 

SOLIDIFICATION/ 

STABILIZATION 

08 

UT 

HILL AIRFORCE BASE 

UT0571724350 

— 


B- 13 















































Table B.l 

Superfund Sites with Arsenic as a Contaminant of Concern (continued) 


- EPA 
REGION 

STATE 

SITE NAME 

EPA ID 

TECHNOLOGY 

APPLIED 

08 

UT 

MONT1CELLO MILL TAILINGS 
(USDOE) 

UT3890090035 

PERMEABLE REACTIVE 
BARRIER 

08 

UT 

OGDEN DEFENSE DEPOT (DLA) 

UT9210020922 

— 

08 

UT 

MIDVALE SLAG 

UTD081834277 

— 

08 

UT 

PETROCHEM RECYCLING 
CORP./EKOTEK PLANT 

UTD093119196 

— 

08 

UT 

PORTLAND CEMENT (KILN DUST 2 & 

3) 

UTD980718670 


08 

UT 

SHARON STEEL CORP. (MIDVALE 
TAILINGS) 

UTD980951388 

— 

08 

UT 

MURRAY SMELTER 

UTD980951420 

— 

08 

WY 

F.E. WARREN AIR FORCE BASE 

WY5571924179 

— 

08 

WY 

BAXTER/UNION PACIFIC TIE 

TREATING 

WYD061112470 

— 

09 

AZ 

WILLIAMS AIR FORCE BASE 

AZ7570028582 

— 

09 

AZ 

APACHE POWDER CO. 

AZD008399263 

— 

09 

AZ 

LITCHFIELD AIRPORT AREA 

AZD980695902 

— 

09 

AZ 

INDIAN BEND WASH AREA 

AZD980695969 

— 

09 

AZ 

TUCSON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 
AREA 

AZD980737530 


09 

CA 

SACRAMENTO ARMY DEPOT 

CA0210020780 

SOLIDIFICATION/ 

STABILIZATION 

09 

CA 

TREASURE ISLAND NAVAL STATION- 
HUNTERS Point ANNEX 

CA 1170090087 

— 

09 

CA 

CAMP PENDLETON MARINE CORPS 
BASE 

CA2170023533 

SOIL WASHING 

09 

CA 

MCCLELLAN AIR FORCE BASE 
(GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION) 

CA4570024337 

— 

09 

CA 

TRACY DEFENSE DEPOT (USARMY) 

CA4971520834 

— 

09 

CA 

EL TORO MARINE CORPS AIR 

STATION 

CA6170023208 

— 

09 

CA 

FORTORD 

CA7210020676 

— 

09 

CA 

BARSTOW MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS 
BASE 

CA8170024261 

— 

09 

CA 

SHARPE ARMY DEPOT 

CA8210020832 

— 

09 

CA 

MATHER AIR FORCE BASE (AC&W 
DISPOSAL SITE) 

CA8570024143 

— 

09 

CA 

J.H. BAXTER & CO. 

CAD000625731 

SOLIDIFICATION/ 

STABILIZATION 

09 

CA 

KOPPERS CO., INC. (OROVILLE 

PLANT) 

CAD009112087 

— 

09 

CA 

RAYTHEON CORP. 

CAD009205097 

— 

09 

CA 

LORENTZ BARREL & DRUM CO. 

CAD029295706 

— 

09 

CA 

SELMA TREATING CO. 

CAD029452141 

SOLIDIFICATION/ 

STABILIZATION 

09 

CA 

ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. 

CAD048634059 

— 

09 

CA 

HEXCEL CORP. 

CAD058783952 

— 

09 

CA 

INTEL CORP. (MOUNTAIN VIEW 

PLANT) 

CAD061620217 

— 

09 

CA 

COAST WOOD PRESERVING 

CAD063015887 

— 


B- 14 








































Table B.l 

Superfund Sites with Arsenic as a Contaminant of Concern (continued) 


"EPA 

REGION 

STATE 

SITE NAME 

EPAID 

TECHNOLOGY 

APPLIED 

09 

CA 

VALLEY WOOD PRESERVING, INC. 

CAD063020143 

— 

09 

CA 

LOUISIANA-PACIFIC CORP. 

CAD065021594 

— 

09 

CA 

SIGNETICS, INC. 

CAD070466479 

— 

09 

CA 

FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR CORP. 

(MOUNTAIN VIEW PLANT) 

CAD095989778 

— 

09 

CA 

IRON MOUNTAIN MINE 

CAD980498612 

— 

09 

CA 

MCCOLL 

CAD980498695 

— 

09 

CA 

PACIFIC COAST PIPE LINES 

CAD980636781 

— 

09 

CA 

CELTOR CHEMICAL WORKS 

CAD980638860 

— 

09 

CA 

PURITY OIL SALES, INC. 

CAD980736151 

— 

09 

CA 

HEWLETT-PACKARD (620-640 PAGE 
MILL ROAD) 

CAD980884209 

— 

09 

CA 

WASTE DISPOSAL, INC. 

CAD980884357 

— 

09 

CA 

WESTERN PACIFIC RAILROAD CO. 

CAD980894679 

— 

09 

CA 

SAN FERNANDO VALLEY (AREA 2) 

CAD980894901 

— 

09 

CA 

RHONE-POULENC, INC./ZOECON 

CORP. 

CAT000611350 

VITRIFICATION, 

SOLIDIFICATION/ 

STABILIZATION 

09 

CA 

OPERATING INDUSTRIES, INC., 
LANDFILL 

CAT080012024 

— 

09 

GU 

ANDERSEN AIR FORCE BASE 

GU6571999519 

— 

09 

NV 

CARSON RIVER MERCURY SITE 

NVD980813646 

— 

10 

AK 

EIELSON AIR FORCE BASE 

AK1570028646 

— 

10 

AK 

ADAK NAVAL AIR STATION 

AK4170024323 

— 

10 

AK 

FORT WAINWRIGHT 

AK6210022426 

— 

10 

AK 

ELMENDORF AIR FORCE BASE 

AK8570028649 

— 

10 

ID 

IDAHO NATIONAL ENGINEERING 
LABORATORY (USDOE) 

ID4890008952 

— 

10 

ID 

KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP. 

(SODA SPRINGS PLANT) 

IDD041310707 

— 

10 

ID 

BUNKER HILL MINING & 
METALLURGICAL COMPLEX 

IDD048340921 

— 

10 

ID 

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO. 

1DD055030852 

— 

10 

ID 

MONSANTO CHEMICAL CO. (SODA 
SPRINGS PLANT) 

1DD081830994 

— 

10 

ID 

PACIFIC HIDE & FUR RECYCLING CO. 

IDD098812878 

— 

10 

ID 

EASTERN MICHAUD FLATS 

CONTAMINATION 

IDD984666610 


10 

OR 

UMATILLA ARMY DEPOT (LAGOONS) 

OR6213820917 

— 

10 

OR 

MCCORMICK & BAXTER CREOSOTING 

CO. (PORTLAND PLANT) 

ORD009020603 

ADSORPTION, ION 

EXCHANGE 

10 

OR 

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO. TIE¬ 

TREATING PLANT 

ORD009049412 


10 

OR 

TELEDYNE WAH CHANG 

ORD050955848 

— 

10 

OR 

MARTIN-MARIETTA ALUMINUM CO. 

ORD052221025 

— 

10 

OR 

JOSEPH FOREST PRODUCTS 

ORD068782820 

— 

10 

OR 

GOULD, INC. 

ORD095003687 

— 

10 

WA 

NAVAL UNDERSEA WARFARE 

ENGINEERING STATION (4 WASTE 
AREAS) 

WA 1170023419 



B- 15 













































Table B.l 

Superfund Sites with Arsenic as a Contaminant of Concern (continued) 


EPa 

REGION 

STATE 

SITE NAME 

EPA ID 

TECHNOLOGY 

APPLIED 

10 

WA 

BONNEVILLE POWER 
ADMINISTRATION ROSS COMPLEX 
(USDOE) 

WA 1891406349 


10 

WA 

PUGET SOUND NAVAL SHIPYARD 
COMPLEX 

WA2170023418 

— 

10 

WA 

HANFORD 300-AREA (USDOE) 

WA2890090077 

— 

10 

WA 

HANFORD 100-AREA (USDOE) 

WA3890090076 

— 

10 

WA 

PORT HADLOCK DETACHMENT 
(USNAVY) 

WA4170090001 

— 

10 

WA 

HANFORD 1100-AREA (USDOE) 

WA4890090075 

— 

10 

WA 

BANGOR NAVAL SUBMARINE BASE 

WA5170027291 

— 

10 

WA 

NAVAL AIR STATION, WHIDBEY 
ISLAND (AULT FIELD) 

WA5170090059 

— 

10 

WA 

NAVAL AIR STATION, WHIDBEY 
ISLAND (SEAPLANE BASE) 

WA6170090058 

— 

10 

WA 

FORT LEWIS LOGISTICS CENTER 

WA7210090067 

— 

10 

WA 

WYCKOFF CO./EAGLE HARBOR 

WAD009248295 

SOLIDIFICATION/ 

STABILIZATION 

10 

WA 

PACIFIC CAR AND FOUNDRY 

WAD009249210 

SOLIDIFICATION/ 

STABILIZATION 

10 

WA 

WESTERN PROCESSING CO., INC. 

WAD009487513 

— 

10 

WA 

YAKIMA PLATING CO. 

WAD040187890 

— 

10 

WA 

QUEEN CITY FARMS 

WAD980511745 

— 

10 

WA 

TULALIP LANDFILL 

WAD980639256 

— 

10 

WA 

SILVER MOUNTAIN MINE 

WAD980722789 

— 

10 

WA 

HARBOR ISLAND (LEAD) 

WAD980722839 

— 

10 

WA 

TOFTDAHL DRUMS 

WAD980723506 

— 

10 

WA 

COMMENCEMENT BAY, SOUTH 
TACOMA CHANNEL 

WAD980726301 

SOLIDIFICATION/ 

STABILIZATION 

10 

WA 

COMMENCEMENT BAY, NEAR 
SHORE/TIDE FLATS 

WAD980726368 

-- 

10 

WA 

AMERICAN LAKE 

GARDFNS/MCCHORD AFB 

WAD980833065 

— 


- = Not available 







































u 

(Q 0) 

oTCQ 
? O 

si 

§o 








































A ' // « 

‘vl ‘ OV * ' 

- A <• 

* w ^ 

♦\o° % *y ^.» 


~ Cv> JVv K 

^ ^ s , °> T 

o° .* W'. °o a 4 FMZfe?* *1 

<)► -~w 




’ rP ^ <0 

* * V, <fONO° .V 
.O^ s s ^ V V J 

A a * jfflp « % A 

o 


«^Y ° V V 6^ C' U ‘"'*.<> -o 

% <- o° °o. <r ■* 

; ? 


>\<gT ^ O 


^. °: 


»■ c^W/E^ *y V- <T/ * -J Ac * , < 

sf-^V^vy-K 

._. vv . TO iV Yjfe-, 

> ° ^ _v <Py <y n* °3c|%a\* ^ - 

^V° * ^/cO*««,V * * *!^V -/V° * ^ /cO««^ 

YLV 4° °VA ?&&&* V /^aA 


<rv ° * v . c ^V * ’ >v i, * A 

4 0 * * JD-/, 

<£- X* *i ^ «K, 1/1 '|p>*i\\vos' v 

O' ~ J- ^s/flts® V O £*V J' 

" i, /o ,, 'X’ 5,o, -j ! ’ 

>a a? <sy vj 

- ^\W/% ° 'Jpll* %■&!•. 

v 



w -#»s 

o 



» c^Jk •; 

.// V 



. * ^ v \ ° 

, - o » %C ’oC v 
°o ^ ^ 

^OV * <ap| K - * 

; \ -<^ ^ * 

- ^-Cn. " SfiK “ ,5>^i 


r „ V-» —— 

;. * * OMO v^t*’ * °*\ " *> 

' w# * W SjsMtoti**. ^ * 


to .-O' J j'. » »|, n ^ V 

i 4 * •q 0 > ^ri>- & ^WtWr -V ^ a A ' (Jk, V t 

^ ** Ll *^° * ‘ V^^rX* * ‘ ^V;^>>'° ’ ‘V.csV,' • V ** l "^ 




O 4® ‘ 

1/1 o/ -V 

* r OV * 

* v°k., * 

.* -O *• 






o 

’> ^ IIP ^ ° 

/,. tt< v * * s l^* l, */v/° 

o * ' ■“ A A **■ 


v ^ ^ 


S ^ 


■ .*jail* r «• w »fi: - 

o ^ o ^«: * 

s o VJ^af ^T V - ), , ^wksp- * <£y o X/ A V^ 'Py < 

>t%° * 

Y-%„ «° „**^Vr 0 **^a2t 


V°Y, 



CY . 

o 4 A 6, V' 

2 « 

« aV4 o 
» yy* *5^ o 



_...„ . Y'Y * v°Y, AY- t 

\Y ono ,*^ , „ 0 oA„.^ ,. *o?V 


«* 5 >\« ii *;v° • i * 0 ^co«-4,'v < * * *>'♦* L,i ^ 

aA ’ :1s$by\ * d *xsto?*yt 

£o 


< V v v> 


,- ,. >* 

* °o> ^-T" 

, .^V' , ‘°'*\ a- 

k ^ 4 ^ o ^ * 



Y o ^ VY o 

<Y %/^ 4 ^ l f <y 

> <P* v o* c o Nc « <{ . ^ 0 ^ ^ ♦♦ 


\ >o«o’ 




- * 
%>/• 


^ <y ,* A '< '°o ^ledSr*' 

; Yd 4 ?4llk* Yv 4, 

* ay. itsaS; >p\ :. 

^> > ^ ^ fAW/Vv o Ta ^ v ^ ^ 


* ,A 









> 'S ^ ^ . A ^ ^ 

^ a J. S^ -A” , . A* ^o Ji A aC> Oj ^ w J. aA , , ■< 

a. * * Jp «* w *a <K * c ot,G n ^n .‘V «,* L, *« 

-A <A * "* 'T - cV 9 r^Tsr. „ , '-'A aA A. ^r/yy-i 1 

^ov * ■* T>r£ o * jl®s& 


-> x). **.... A A 

conc^ <V A 

$ -r*vc\ .. * .A -i* 





* 0 *< 


>. ' ** aP* 

r~ * 11 XT * * 
Ca <f/ % 

l \£ 



■ * sa^ 1 ; '^<y ? «^p® * ov * ««&?• * 

\W;/\ \w; o* v“.*v 

?> a ^V/v"o %. % a a 


va 


A A 

• \<P ^ 


.«► »« U *.V“ * ‘* 0 * c°»°« # '"V * * %$>> ' 

•W* *sp!k Xd* °«sHr* 

- 4yQ * 

4- <v >*. ~tZ>?7//l£& ‘i ■>'<*»» * 

*- ^~» J* ^Z/lr’V a. <“) /■*» 4> 

W . V^>A°'\?' 11 *>°s‘_* * - ^ **' 




u 

* At? v, <?■ > o w^%\k/ A ' r \ vi£ji^* ^ v \ ° 

fe-x* • ;v>j^x * '^m^K • av 

; x 0 * °4il&* ■nA «#w > ; x 0 * °< 

* .< X * real] f?®3 .. /"n >. n v*-< kJw^, a X <* 



►rTo*V ° 0 ^ 

#o N o° O 

k \> *-' ° 

4X ^ 


y ov 

V^>°a * * >X W >^ * .. r x* UHo9 Y+' -*V ,: 

1 ' ‘ J 


AO a 

<^r V> 

v v 


V A 



___ . vs 

ef»JV ^ o o 

<{? V, »&* ^ ^ o 

^ % +777^\> * * 

f .0N Cvj 4^v ^ * .A 

** °0 4^ -♦ 

- \y -V 
* ^OV 


- 


, - ..„. -' jT\ * # W/ ^ y % W; A\ « 

« ^ 4 a° oNc ^ %** * * s \^ « L*«/^/° * x * 0 ^°c° NG < 




A' <, 


Ao, 


r* %a •A t .\/,‘iii* 



o% 

> - tf/, ^k \\yj » f ° 

/4?° ^ "V° toNc ^V * * s ^** L,fi %^ v ° v 

A V «'^iftr* ' 

a! ^ * “-* 


; \o' 

« ^ , 

?»' , « o,, /».‘“\'''" 

# A >Vav^% A.* 
r ?mm°* 

$•?> j 


- °0 4^V’ 

' +a? 

* vO^> * 

*y O’ 0^> 

' ,<r K 




o WAm?«: « <aa o <: .v 

’V 0 ’ ‘ v *d^°" c * Ao^ * * 'A* i "^V° * ">°-* 

;V * Av- A #: V fl 

*«S^ v o <^°«» ;^ iri “®‘ ^ «r^s 

V‘.,n . * A/ > ° N ° , *A ’-' 1 * °r o A 


A °* 

f** :£mm% %# » 

^\*^/V* - - c 
v:*><b * • 'A^X° ’ V-—* 

'AA I' 


lP<i * 


-•X"’ 

Xx > a|; XX- * AW/A " ^ 

. ut./V' 0 * 

-> °o ^ / ‘° 11 J 

'AA ' " J 









A^teX X. ^ :A f o\./rW* ^V*o V X 



«• - -e-s- •> ^ \ %*$§$■? A\ ■•>» 

vV“ * k V & ‘ oHO Aq' J * * 'A' “A 

j'*X , 0 5 ,W', u o *■ 

‘ o ^ ^)V * 




: Xo^ 
-*1 


x /°x , r \W.”A *x 

■ * o -°x*'"’ * V°a * * ^ x *' , '“ o ’ v^ ’*’*o*\* 


, »; ,b h \ »IwpP/ X 
/v°»A»"'t ( V'" 5 X\* l, */A o * ’■■* qAc 

5 ° ■J. ^ 0 ^ 0 4 » 1 || 1 ^ * ^OV * t ° 4 ^? 




V°<> * 


. r . ^ ^° v ^ . 

A 


AW>/''V.mx/ w^// V\. 

X -t « »' A , Ul,^ . * 0 « ^ c OMO, •Vq ^ * * ’■'** ^ 

' °o ^ ?&mc+ °o^ ^ 

4 






’ A 
V nv 



A «° ■> 

; Xd 4 

A.O 

* V r> O A ^ 

x-;X*;-X";x^X 

* X,A "iS;m < 'o <X,X * - ® 



^ XXTTa'a 

o° v AIX°o ,A* 

A i^\ ♦ 


,V ' oV ‘ 4 

'-X. rP^ 



ouo' 




x x * 


* A '-n -v O' 7 

X*X\";A 

0 C ^ac 55 


c* n 


















































